2000-09-053917REPS2009702000-09-05—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous2009714:01:0020097Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Could I have your indulgence for one moment, Mr Speaker, to announce changes to my frontbench?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition may proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The Manager of Opposition Business, in addition to maintaining his role in that regard, is now the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs and reconciliation and the shadow minister for the arts. The member for Fremantle, as well as having responsibility for the status of women, is the shadow minister for industry, innovation and technology. I seek leave to table the list of the shadow ministry.Leave granted.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The House must come to order. I would have thought we would have a more constructive exchange as a result of questions than we will as a result of repartee.Questions Without Notice200972009714:02:0020097Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and concerns the content of the government's human rights seminars in Rangoon. Is the government in its presentations to Burmese officials arguing for adherence to the UN human rights conventions which Burma has declined to sign or ratify, especially the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? What arguments are you advancing to your Burmese dialogue partners for having them recognise the competence of the Committee Against Torture to receive and consider individual complaints? Just how does the Australian government's assault on the UN's human rights committee system help persuade the Burmas of this world to sign key human rights conventions and accept international monitoring of human rights?20097Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The overall approach of this government to human rights in Burma is not only to see that the Burmese people and the Burmese government are able to fulfil the international norms of human rights—which, of course, are well articulated in United Nations conventions and a number of other instruments—but also to see in Burma the restoration of democracy, which was snatched from the Burmese people just over 10 years ago. These programs that are being run are violently opposed by the opposition. I would not have thought that you would be getting up here trying to ask smart questions about whether UN conventions are included in these programs, because you are opposed to the programs altogether. This country adheres to United Nations conventions. We signed these conventions a very long time ago, and we obviously support other countries signing the conventions. But one of the points that is often made about United Nations conventions is that many countries sign these conventions and some do not live up to them. There is a long record of that. If I were in the Labor Party, I would not be too naive about the way the world works. If I were in the Labor Party, I would not continue with a policy of, on the one hand, saying you are concerned about human rights but, on the other hand—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—If you were in the Labor Party—4G4Mr DOWNER—I would never be in the Labor Party, don't you worry! That is the last thing I would want to do. It is the last thing on earth I would want—to be in a party that brought economic ruin on this country in the past. I would not want to be part of that, and no-one here would want to be. Thank you for your interjection!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will return to the question. 4G4Mr DOWNER—The Labor Party talks loud on human rights, but when it comes to Burma you want to do nothing at all about human rights. That, of course, is the hypocrisy and the weakness of your position.2009814:06:0020098Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General please inform the House on the progress of the alternative native title regimes of Western Australia and the Northern Territory? Is the Attorney-General aware of any alternative policies which would prevent these regimes from coming into operation?20098Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The member for Fraser has been handed what one of his colleagues regrettably described as the poisoned chalice: he has been appointed the new Labor spokesperson on Aboriginal affairs. Now the member for Fraser should tell us where Labor stands on native title. People in Western Australia and people in the Northern Territory particularly want to know. The member for Fraser says he volunteered for the job that one of his colleagues described so distastefully yesterday. Given that he has described it as an honour and a privilege, he should ensure that honour is observed in the handling of native title issues. Labor proved last week that they can do deals for Mr Beattie in Queensland, despite protestations from the member for Banks. The question is: if I make determinations that the regimes in Western Australia and the Northern Territory comply with the Native Title Act, can the member for Fraser make Labor do for the Northern Territory and Western Australia what Labor did for Queensland and New South Wales? To do anything less will remove the certainty we all want. To do anything less will harm the mining industry and cost Aboriginal people jobs.I am currently considering whether Western Australia's proposed native title regime complies with the Native Title Act. Submissions from Western Australian representatives were due last Friday and I expect to be in a position to announce a decision soon. The Northern Territory has also asked me to reconsider its request for determinations, which I am in the process of doing. The Chief Minister has indicated that he will be amending his request to me to propose a similar compromise to that struck with Queensland: the removal of the right to negotiate in respect of low impact mineral exploration. If we judge Labor's policy by its record last week, this should secure Labor's support for the proposed Northern Territory regime. But Labor's track record is far from consistent. The member for Fraser needs to be able to assure Premier Court and Chief Minister Bourke that they will get the same level of attention from him and the Leader of the Opposition as Premier Beattie and Premier Carr got. Already the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that, if I approve it, Labor will disallow the Western Australian regime in its current form, in the same way that it rejected the previous Northern Territory regime last year. Clearly, federal Labor's approach to sorting out native title is inconsistent and duplicitous. There is one policy for Labor states and one for the rest.2009814:09:0020098Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask whether you recall announcing last week that:Australia will not sign or ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women ... Why did Australian officials last year actively play a central role in drafting the protocol that the government now refuses to sign or ratify? Were the officials who were engaged in the development of this protocol operating under instructions from you at the time or in defiance of you? Given Australia's positive role in the development of this human rights protection, what is your justification for now reneging on our commitment?20098Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. It is the practice of this government—and I imagine it was the practice of previous governments—that we inevitably participate in negotiations on conventions and protocols where they are multilateral conventions rather than storm out and refuse to negotiate. We negotiate. When the negotiation is complete, we look at the completed document and we give consideration to whether our government will sign it. In the end, after appropriate parliamentary consultation—something you never did—we make a decision on whether we will ratify it. Of course officials from my department were involved in discussions. But I would not necessarily take a lot of heart from a story by one of the world of journalism's great beat-up merchants, Mark Riley. I would not be too heartened by him. 2009914:12:0020099Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Would the minister inform the House of progress in achieving increased employment opportunities for indigenous Australians? Are there any alternative policies to the government's real jobs approach? Or is there any prospect of alternative policies being implemented?20099Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Moreton. He does have a genuine interest in Aboriginal employment. This government—Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—It is a bit rich you saying that that is a joke given the last few days on your side. You could not find anybody who even wanted the job. There was no interest on your side.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister is aware of the obligation that he has to address his remarks through the chair.WI4Mr REITH—There was just a factional squabble.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order that all comments should be addressed through you. The Leader of the House in particular never does that.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I had drawn the minister's attention to that and he had noted my caution.WI4Mr REITH—I was very pleased recently to be in Western Australia at Gosnells to hand out the graduation certificates for 11 indigenous Australians who had participated in a training program. I want to pay tribute to Ernie Bridges and his community organisation, Unity of First People of Australia, and its community justice program. It is a very practical program, providing jobs and dealing with the local situation in terms of problems with some unfortunate juvenile behaviour. I also want to pay tribute to Chubb Security, which has taken a leading role in providing job opportunities for indigenous Australians. This represents a good partnership between the community, local government in this case, the federal government and, in this case, Chubb. I was also recently in Western Australia with Hugh Morgan of the Western Mining Corporation. There we initiated a new training program whereby a large number of indigenous Australians will hopefully, over time, be provided with real employment opportunities in the mining industry.This makes a simple point, and that is that government needs to work with the community and with industry to ensure that our industries are vibrant and growing and that there is demand for their services and products, which will, in turn, ensure higher levels of employment. This government has done a lot to promote employment opportunities in the Australian economy. Unemployment is the lowest it has been for 10 years. That has not happened by chance; it has happened because we have had a deliberate policy to encourage industry development and therefore the jobs that flow from it. I am asked about alternative policies and the chances of implementing them. You have no chance of providing people with job opportunities if you are not prepared to support industry and the risk takers who are prepared to have a go and create those opportunities. This was a point made rather well, I thought, by a former finance minister—one of your colleagues—who said this about the new shadow minister for industry. What a joke! She is more anti-industry than she is pro-industry. It is not going to make jobs; it is going to lose jobs. No greater authority do I have than the following statement made not by a member of the coalition but by a leading member of the Labor Party—in fact a former cabinet minister and a leading member of the Western Australian Labor Party. Who would that be? None other than Peter Walsh. This is what he says about the industry credentials of Labor's new industry spokesperson: More seriously, in Canberra she abandoned the regional forest agreement policy put in place by her government in Western Australia in favour of green extremism.What is the consequence of that? A loss of jobs for indigenous Australians in regional Australia. But he says more. He goes on to say:She has also opposed industrial development—and jobs for Labor voters—in Cockburn Sound and praised in her electoral newsletter a Green ally who proposed to run against Labor in the State seat of Cockburn.This is not a policy to create jobs.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question to the minister was in relation to indigenous employment opportunities. What Peter Walsh's views are has nothing to do with that issue. You ought to draw his attention to it or sit him down.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—My attention has been brought to a matter of relevance by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who made a valid point of order. In fact, in the latter part of the minister's response, he was making reference to something which I found difficult to link specifically to aboriginal employment. I invite the minister to make that link or return to the question.WI4Mr REITH—The quote from Peter Walsh was `and jobs for Labor voters'. Indigenous Australians are entitled to be Labor voters as much as anybody else. This is a matter of serious concern as this government works to provide job opportunities—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Oh, come on!WI4Mr REITH—We have done a lot more than you ever did when you were in office. The Labor Party are full of talk, but when it comes to a bit of action to actually provide some real jobs for indigenous Australians they go missing. What do we find when it comes to the allocation of portfolios? Is there an allocation on the basis of merit? No. The Leader of the Opposition cannot get anybody from the Left and he cannot get anybody from the Right, so he has to get somebody who is independent.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will return to the question.WI4Mr REITH—I will finish by making this simple point. We have a higher level of disadvantage in respect of Aboriginal indigenous unemployment in this country. The answer to that is the provision of genuine job opportunities. This government is working with industry to provide those opportunities, but when we look at the alternative policies—which was part of the question—and whether or not they are likely to be implemented—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—You're struggling now.WI4Mr REITH—Unfortunately, the struggle is on Labor's side. There is a struggle because the Leader of the Opposition cannot stand up to a few factions and cannot make decent appointments to his own frontbench.2010014:20:0020100Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—There is not much that you know about principle.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Bowman will come to his question.6J4Mr SCIACCA—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Minister, do you recall yesterday, following the revelation that as far back as October 1999 you were contemplating withdrawing Australia from the individual complaints process under the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, failing to give this House a guarantee that you would rule out this course of action? Given the possible serious consequences outlined by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in its reply to the secretary to your department, why will you not honour your membership of Amnesty International and categorically rule out withdrawing Australia from the individual complaints process? 20100Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for the question. Yesterday, I outlined the position of the government in relation to this matter when I affirmed very positively that the approach we are taking is one where it is quite clear that abusive claims are being made under the individual complaints mechanism and that we will adopt the same position that Canada and Holland have adopted of declining to accept the request not to remove people from, in this case, Australia. It is important that honourable members recognise that in the past there were very few claims in relation to the torture convention. I think over a period of something like seven or eight years no more than seven individual complaints had been lodged. We now have 18 complaints before the individual complaints body.WF6Danby, Michael, MP0J4Mr RUDDOCK—There are 18 complaints, I believe. It is a substantial increase. It is quite clear—as I said yesterday and last week—that there is abuse of the system by people who are seeking an immigration outcome. The protection system, and now the individual treaty complaints system, are deliberately pursued to keep people in Australia who have no lawful entitlement to be here and who have no entitlement to effectively steal the places that would be available to far more vulnerable people in refugee situations.As I said last week—and I will say it again in front of the honourable member—the fact is that there has been a very significant increase in the numbers of people coming to Australia unlawfully. The fact is that that has placed very significant strains upon the system in dealing with those issues. The people who will end up in detention over long periods of time, about which the honourable member complains, are those who use the legal system to test the limits of claims that might be brought, as well as those people who are using now the UN treaty system. The fact is that there are solutions to this matter. The problem that we face is that the Labor Party are no longer prepared to be part of the solution; they are now part of the problem.2010114:24:0020101Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister advise the House about the impact of government initiatives to advance education and innovation? Is the minister aware of any alternative views on innovation?20101Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for his question. The government has a major commitment to ensuring that Australia's strong science base is linked into the innovation system and that it contributes effectively to the generation of new enterprises and new jobs. I remind the House that in 1997 the Prime Minister's Science and Engineering Council became the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council. Last December I issued a white paper, `Knowledge and innovation', designed to strengthen research-industry links, which is now being implemented.Yesterday the government launched the report of the innovation summit, entitled Innovation: unlocking the future. This government is committed to making sure that Australia gets the benefits of innovation. I suppose the latest example of catch-up politics is that the Leader of the Opposition has now appointed the member for Fremantle as the shadow minister for innovation. This will provide the shadow minister with probably her first opportunity to talk positively about innovation. Last week, on 29 August in the House, she gave a speech against innovation. She aligned herself with two critics of innovation who, she said: ... are very sceptical about the claim that innovations in agriculture are absolutely necessary to save us all. In fact, those innovations have more often been driven by profit than by need.We have here an industry and innovation shadow minister who is against innovation and against profits. That is a great start. More than that, she is also against industrial development. Indeed, when I checked on her web site earlier today, I found that she is vigorously campaigning against industrial development in Perth. There is a vigorous protest against the Fremantle to Rockingham industrial strategy, and she makes very clear her attitude to this industrial development. The problem with industry, as she has made clear, is that industry pollutes. I quote her:Concerns about the project include ... the impact of an expansion in heavy industry on the pollution levels of local suburbs and the whole of the metropolitan region. Studies have attributed some of Perth's current pollution problem to existing Kwinana industry—which may be on the way out if Labor gets into office. Here we have a shadow minister who is against innovation, against profits and against industrial development. The Leader of the Opposition should have asked her a few hard questions before, rather than after, he appointed her. The problem was that he was too weak to stand up to the factional pressure. He had to give her something, and we now have an industry shadow minister who is against innovation and industry. We have an education shadow minister—he survived—who is excluded from the knowledge nation policy development process. We have an industry shadow minister opposed to industrial development and we have an education shadow minister who is opposed to the knowledge nation process.I have here a bit of help for the Leader of the Opposition in his search for the culprit who referred to the Aboriginal affairs portfolio as a poisoned chalice and being like a certain position on the Titanic. In our search through the databases, only one shadow minister has so far been able to be identified as having used both those phrases in the past. That shadow minister is the member for Dobell.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will return to the question.BT4Dr KEMP—Mr Speaker, the question was about alternative views on education.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I noted the question.BT4Dr KEMP—I am now referring to the views of the member for Dobell. The member for Dobell was quoted in Hansard on 26 March 1998.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—I have two points, Mr Speaker: (1) I am not a member of the Left; and (2) my point of order—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell has the call and will be heard in silence. Does the member for Dobell have a point of order?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Yes, Mr Speaker. You asked the minister to return to the question—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I did indeed.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—and he is defying your ruling. I ask you bring the minister back to the question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I was listening to the minister's response as I heard he was about to quote something. I have no way of knowing whether the quote was relevant to the question or not and for that reason, I had not intervened. I will listen to the minister's response.BT4Dr KEMP—I notice that the member for Dobell has in fact narrowed the search to the Left, although there was no clear denial. I refer to a press release issued by the member for Dobell when he became the shadow minister for education in which he said:I would have been happy to have kept the `poisoned chalice' of health but I'm very happy to get education ...So he is the only shadow minister who has used both those phrases. The Leader of the Opposition should now get each of the shadow ministers on the left to get up and issue a denial that they were the source of that accusation. 2010214:32:0020102Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. In supporting the statement of his three ministers that they will not cooperate with UN treaty committees on human rights, Prime Minister Howard said that these matters should be determined by Australians themselves. If he is genuine in this statement, why have the Prime Minister and the government ignored the determinations of Australia's own Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which has condemned the mandatory sentencing of Aboriginal people and the mandatory detention of refugees? Furthermore, why has the government totally ignored the pleas of the Refugee Council of Australia, church groups and other community organisations that support the UN criticism? If the Prime Minister wants to ignore the UN on these issues, why won't he at least listen to the millions of Australians who are very concerned about his policies on refugees and indigenous people?20102Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPActing Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I will simply make a couple of very brief points. The first is that, when it comes to listening to the Australian people, I believe that, overwhelmingly, they would expect us to take the firm and appropriate approach we have to the reform of the UN committee system. The second point I would make is that I believe we are a government, from the Prime Minister down, that is extremely sound when it comes both to listening and to making the right and appropriate decisions, having accepted counsel.2010314:34:0020103Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. With the Prime Minister in New York attending the UN Millennium Summit, would the Acting Prime Minister outline Australia's engagement with the United Nations?20103Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPActing Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I point out at the outset that Australia is a founding member of United Nations. We are the 10th largest contributor to its regular and peacekeeping budgets. Indeed it is worth recalling that this year the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, described Australia as a `model member of the UN'. It needs to be recalled, too, I think, that all of us are very aware, and proud, of the fact that Australia pulled together and led INTERFET, the UN sanctioned multinational force in East Timor, last September and that Australian soldiers continue to make a major contribution to stabilising the situation there so that the East Timorese people can build their new nation. It was Australia that rescued the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty from the Conference on Disarmament deadlock. We took it to the UN General Assembly and ensured its adoption by an overwhelming majority. Australia demonstrated similar leadership in the negotiations that concluded the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the recent reaffirmation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as the best vehicle to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to move towards nuclear disarmament.So the current initiative of the government to reform the UN treaty system to make it effective and efficient should be seen in the context of the enormously positive and constructive approach this government has taken and will take to engagement with the United Nations. To make the point by asking the question rhetorically and to reiterate—as the Prime Minister posed the question in this place—I think it is worth repeating that in its most recent report on Australia, the CERD Committee, the one that deals with the elimination of racial discrimination, singled out Australia with 13 of the 15 recommendations labelled as concerns, contrasted with the number of concerns listed for China, 10; Pakistan, nine; and Cuba, one. I actually think that to suggest that in those circumstances the Australian people would not want us to pursue an efficient and appropriate treaty making process in the UN is to deny reality. The Australian people are committed to a fair go and to reasonable outcomes. They are certainly committed to being good global citizens, and I think all of the evidence on that is overwhelming. But we also expect, I think rightly, that we are able to be fairly described, to put our point of view properly and to have that recognised when we are considered. When we announced the review on 30 March, we made it quite clear that we were not thinking of walking away—as I heard a member opposite say a little while ago in an interjection—from our international obligations or from engaging with the UN system. Our concern is that the United Nations human rights treaty committees are not working as they should, and this is an observation with which, interestingly, the UN Commissioner on Human Rights, Mary Robinson, agrees. We have decided on a series of measures to improve the effectiveness of those treaty committees, and I think it is only right and proper—and in terms of the question that was asked by the honourable member a moment ago, it would be expected by the Australian people—that we pursue these sensible outcomes.2010314:38:0020103O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer to your answer of yesterday, when you said you had no knowledge of any agreement concerning payments in respect of South Africa's exit from the International Wool Secretariat. When you were minister for primary industries, did you approve a proposal detailing how a payout figure for South Africa might be calculated in the event of its withdrawal from the International Wool Secretariat? Can you guarantee that the negotiations arising under your proposal will not seriously delay plans to restructure wool research and promotion in this country?20104Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I assure him that, in good faith, I was going to return to this matter at the end of question time today with some further information on the matters that he raised yesterday. I said nothing yesterday that was not accurate; the only observation I would make about what happened during my time as minister for primary industries is that a decision was made by industry and by government that we should move to substantially restructure the old IWS, which, of course, became the Woolmark company at that point of time. I would urge the shadow minister to be very responsible here, because his question yesterday, the figure that he raised and the way that he raised it are not likely to be helpful to Australia's wool growers. There are a couple of very important points that I want to make. The first is: Cape Wools of South Africa has withdrawn from the International Wool Secretariat, which is now known, as I said, as the Woolmark company. The 1998-99 annual report of the Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation—AWRAP—indicated that settlement of the terms of Cape Wools' withdrawal had yet to be concluded. The wind-up of the old IWS has been under way for some time, but this particular matter is yet to be concluded. Here is the important point and, I do urge in good faith, sir, that, out of respect for the Australian wool industry, you acknowledge this: the matter is now the legal and commercial responsibility of the AWRAP board and no-one else. It would therefore be quite inappropriate for the government to offer any comment. I reiterate that the speculative figures canvassed yesterday by the shadow minister were very unhelpful, and I suggest that he would do well to keep his own counsel on this matter, as he runs the risk of seriously undermining the interests of wool growers in this country.2010414:41:0020104Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Bearing in mind the current debate surrounding reform of the United Nations treaty system, could the minister advise the House of initiatives this government has taken to improve the workings of the treaty system in Australia? Are you aware of any alternative policy approaches in this area? 20104Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. I recognise the interest he has had in improving the transparency of treaty making processes in this country. When this government came to office in 1996, we introduced major reforms to the treaty making process. We on this side of the House believe that the parliament should play a prominent role in scrutinising intended treaties. That of course is one of the great differences between the coalition and the Australian Labor Party.We introduced the tabling of treaties in the parliament; we made it clear that each treaty would be tabled to include a national interest analysis allowing parliamentary and community scrutiny of treaties; we established the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which of course gives the public the opportunity to come forward and express views; we have set up a treaties information database, and so on. In other words, extensive transparency has been built into the treaty making process.The honourable member asked if there are any alternative approaches, and of course there is an alternative approach: there is the approach of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party talk big in opposition, but when you look at the Labor Party's record you need to look at what they did in government. In government, the Labor Party basically operated a system of secret treaty making. They did not want the Australian parliament or the Australian public to scrutinise the treaties they made. What is interesting is that the Labor Party, which are such strong supporters of the individual complaints mechanism to the United Nations, made those complaints mechanisms possible. They did that in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and in the international convention against torture. The Labor Party acceded to protocols in one case and in the other two cases they signed up to the complaints mechanisms, and they did so without any consultation with this parliament or with the Australian people. The Labor Party, in my view quite rightly—and I do not often defend the Labor Party—were opposed to Privy Council appeals. But the Labor Party in government were in favour of United Nations appeals from the Australian parliament, from Australian courts and from Australian institutions, but they have done it without any consultation whatsoever with the parliament or with the Australian people. I think the Labor Party stand very exposed for their commitment to secret treaty making, for keeping the parliament right out of the process and, of course, for making sure that the Australian public were ignorant of what the Labor government were doing in terms of signing up to all sorts of obligations.2010514:45:0020105Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, do you recall telling a business meeting in Mudgee:We have 30 per cent of airspace at Mascot locked in with legislation for regional airlines and I have made it clear that will change only over my dead body.Minister, isn't it true that on 25 July 2000 your spokesman told the Sydney Morning Herald:We do not deny the comment was made and neither does the minister back away from it.Minister, have you backed away from this commitment? Minister, will you keep your word and resign as minister if cabinet determines any measure that will reduce the legislated 30 per cent regional airlines access to Kingsford Smith Airport?20105Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPActing Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. It has certainly taken him a while to come to it. I simply make the observation that I have made my views on regional access to Sydney airport very clear. I do not intend to add to my previous comments, nor do I back away from them. I make it quite plain that I do not resile from my statement. I do not think I need to add to, or subtract from, that. That you should portray yourself as some latter-day convert to the interests of rural and regional New South Wales is very welcome, but the fact of the matter is that it does not wash. Your failure to stand up for a single worthwhile policy initiative in rural and regional Australia is absolutely legendary. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Acting Prime Minister has an obligation to address his remarks through the chair, as he knows. Has he concluded his answer?4K4Mr ANDERSON—Yes.2010514:48:0020105Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of any new economic indicators on the Australian economy and progress on the implementation of the new tax system.20105Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the member for Mitchell for his question. I can inform him that today the ACCI-Westpac survey of industrial trends for the September quarter 2000 was released. The good news is that it reports a strong rise in business confidence. Mark Paterson, Chief Executive of ACCI, said:This is good news. The economy is performing well. The smooth introduction of the GST has largely dispelled concerns associated with the early stages of tax changes. Mr Bill Evans from Westpac said:As we have seen recently with consumer confidence, business confidence has bounced back from the sharp falls in the June survey.Again, this is new evidence from the business community on how they are coping with the tax changes, and confidence is rising as the tax system is improved. One of the things, of course, that would threaten business confidence in the tax system would be any roll-back of the GST. A strange thing is that you never hear the word `roll-back' in this parliament anymore. It has not been mentioned in this House since 1 July. We can remember how the backbench of the Labor Party used to give speech after speech against the GST, but do you hear speech after speech in favour of roll-back? On 21 July was the last time the Leader of the Opposition issued the word `roll-back'. It is almost as if he cannot get his tongue around the word. It starts with `r' and it is spelled r-o-l-l. On the 7.30 Report on 23 February 2000, the Leader of the Opposition said:... people are entitled to know where the Labor Party stands on the GST and the direction in which we're going.They're also entitled to know exactly what we'd do in the next term of government with a GST ... People are entitled to know it and not be deceived.That is what he said on 23 February—`not be deceived'. The one thing you can never get an explanation out of the Labor Party on is `roll-back': what is going to be rolled back, when it is going to be rolled back, how much it is going to cost and how they are going to pay for it.It was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 28 August 2000 by Michelle Grattan:It's an open secret that Mr Crean is strongly opposed to any roll-back that would make the tax more complicated ...Since every roll-back will make it more complicated, it is an open secret that Mr Crean is opposed to roll-back.This was a lazy opposition which said that it was going to surf into office on the GST. Why does it find itself in so much trouble today? Because at its heart was a policy fraud—the policy fraud that Australia alone of the industrialised world could have a wholesale sales tax. Today we now have the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer, being the last person standing in the modern world for a wholesale sales tax—he and the leaders of Swaziland, side by side. We have got the Socialist Left running finance and the Socialist Left running industry. What a team to go out to the business community! `This is our team,' they say to the business community, `two members of the Socialist Left and a trade union official.' That will be popular in the boardrooms. It will be as popular in the boardrooms as the roll-back policy. All we say is that it is a very simple proposition—roll-back. The people are entitled to know: tell us what, tell us when, tell us how much and tell us how you are going to pay for it. That is all we ask for, a policy. It is a very big ask from this Labor opposition. 2010614:52:0020106Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the Acting Prime Minister confirm that today motorists in Ceduna, Coober Pedy, Port Lincoln and Renmark are paying more tax for their petrol than motorists in Adelaide? Wasn't the Royal Automobile Association of South Australia correct when it said: Even with the regional fuel grants scheme subsidising country prices by one or two cents per litre, regional motorists are paying more GST than those in the city. Why have you supported a policy that taxes regional motorists higher than city motorists?20106Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPActing Prime Minister10—As I have noted in this place as recently as yesterday, there have been and are still some spikes from time to time in petrol prices in different places. There are; it is a matter of reality. But it works both ways. In fact, I got a letter today from somebody near Caboolture, north of Brisbane, saying that a week ago they were paying 92.9c a litre and that this week it is 82.5. You sudden, newfound friends of rural and regional Australians want to imply that it is all a one-way equation, that it is all up. It isn't. In fact, the member for New England yesterday informed me that in Tamworth fuel has been as low as 94.9c again. We would like to see it lower. The fact is that, on the automobile association's own figures, the gap between country and city pricing—that differential that has been of deep concern to a lot of people—3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—I have a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. My question was about country South Australia, not Queensland. Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister will sign the member for Makin's petition. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Port Adelaide does not have a valid point of order under relevance. The Acting Prime Minister was entirely relevant to the question asked, and he will continue.4K4Mr ANDERSON—I just make the point that it is obviously quite impossible to be able to monitor the price of petrol in every service station in every community right across Australia. But that does not hide the fact that despite the opportunists opposite, the opportunists over there whose willingness to stretch a point, to go to any length to obscure, to try to frighten, to try to mislead knows no bounds, the point remains that if you have a close look at the automobile association's own work it shows a narrowing of the gap.The other point that I make is that you do get some extraordinary spikes in cities as well as in the country. Where there is a suggestion that it is really untoward, as one member put to me in this House the other day, you have avenues available to you to refer them to—the ACCC. But let me make a couple of other points. This is coming from the team—the point has to be made again and again and again for those listening, whether they are out there listening to their car radios or wherever it is—that, when it comes to fuel excise, are the absolute masters of the rip-off art: the ALP. I mean, 500 per cent! Until everyone across Australia has heard the figure we will go on saying it: there was a 500 per cent increase in fuel when they were in power. The Leader of the Opposition does not deny it—a 500 per cent increase. If we were still on the same line—the member for Paterson is not here— PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question went to the narrow point of whether or not—in this case in South Australia—people in regional Australia were paying more tax on petrol than people in the city. This is just way off that.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—On the point of order, Mr Speaker, this is simply part of a campaign of disruption by the opposition. The Acting Prime Minister was clearly relevant, totally relevant. We have had a disruption from the Leader of the Opposition and a ridiculous point of order from the member for Port Adelaide.PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House has the call and will be heard in silence. The Leader of the Opposition would expect the Leader of the House to hear him in silence and will extend the same courtesy to him.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—The Leader of the Opposition spelt it out in his press conference today when he said that if a minister is making an adverse comment about the opposition then they are entitled to do absolutely anything to prevent them. That last point of order is an abuse of process.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Acting Prime Minister is being entirely relevant to the question asked.4K4Mr ANDERSON—When the Leader of the Opposition stood up to make a point of order he actually had an opportunity to repudiate my claim. He had another opportunity to repudiate it. The claim was that fuel excise increased by 500 per cent when they were in government. The member for Paterson is back in here. Let me make the point rhetorically again by asking this question: has he informed his constituents that, if they were still in power, on the graph line that you can establish under their performance for excise increases, motorists would be paying over 50c a litre now? No doubt, of course, the member for Paterson has in fact told his constituents that his next door neighbour in electoral terms, the member for Hunter, believes that the $500 million that is easing the country-city price differential ought to be scrapped.2010714:59:0020107Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House about his recent visit to East Timor one year on, and the government's efforts to promote relations between East Timor and Australia? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?20107Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—First of all, I thank the honourable member for Farrer for his question. I think all members of this House know how committed the member for Farrer has been to the people of East Timor. Not only has he written and sold a very successful book, but also he has given the royalties from that book to the people of East Timor. I think that is a great credit to the member for Farrer—a good man, a good member of the National Party and a good member of the coalition.I was very pleased to represent Australia at East Timor's ballot celebrations. I took the opportunity whilst there to underline Australia's continuing commitment to East Timor and support for efforts to meet the challenges that country faces—which are, as the House would know, very substantial—on its path to nationhood. While I was there, I was reminded of the very significant contribution Australians are making to the rebuilding of East Timor—not just our military, though certainly our military, but also the civilian police, who are doing a magnificent job, and all sorts of Australians from non-government organisations, our aid program and so on who are playing a vital role in rebuilding East Timor. I had very good meetings while I was there with UNTAET, the United Nations Transitional Authority in East Timor, and with CNRT, the East Timorese umbrella political organisation. In particular, of course, we focused on concerns that we have about the border region. While I was there I renewed Australia's commitment to helping with the rebuilding of East Timor and I said that we would help with the building of the health and education systems. I also said—because we are, after all, the world's sixth oldest continuously operating democracy—that we would help with the development of East Timor's democracy. After all, it is in our interests as well as in their interests for East Timor to be a democratic country. I even went so far as to say that Australia would assist with the building of a parliament house for East Timor, which I think would be a very nice symbol of the democratic relationship between Australia and this new nation. Are there any alternative approaches? With my usual grace and my usual dignity, I took the opposition spokesman up to East Timor and brought him back. Opposition members interjecting—4G4Mr DOWNER—You mock him over there, but he was perfectly nice, I thought; perfectly pleasant. When I got back to Australia, I was shown a press release from the opposition spokesman, the member for Kingsford-Smith, who while he was there could not resist the temptation of scoring a party political point. Lo and behold, he put out a press release saying that Labor was totally opposed to helping the East Timorese build a parliament house. It is sad that the Labor Party should behave in this most expedient of ways. I hope the East Timorese do not ever read this press release.Let me conclude with another anecdote. When I was at the airport before I left East Timor, I spoke with AAP. The journalist from AAP asked me whether Australia would apologise to the East Timorese for its policies towards East Timor over the years. My answer was that the Australian government is proud of what it has done for the people of East Timor, and I think the Australian people are proud of what we have done for the people of East Timor. When I got back to Australia and I was browsing through AAP, I noticed that the member for Kingsford-Smith had been asked the same question. His answer was that Labor gave in-principle support for a parliamentary apology—presumably for the policies of Hawke, Keating and Whitlam. Had this been cleared with the Leader of the Opposition? Had it been cleared with the shadow cabinet? Did the judas of the shadow cabinet, by the way, agree to this policy? We would like to know if this is the Labor Party's policy. If it is, we look forward to the resolution coming forward and hearing the mea culpa from the Australian Labor Party and the response of Messrs Hawke, Keating and, once more of course, Whitlam.2010815:04:0020108Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to his claim last week that the tax take from petrol is no higher for regional motorists than it is for city motorists because of the regional fuel grants scheme. Isn't it true that in every example you quoted in that answer the retail price already included the fuel grants scheme? Didn't you engage in double counting by trying to reduce the retail price by the amount of the fuel grants scheme a second time? And isn't the RAA right when it stated in an advertisement headed `Unchain our petrol, Mr Howard':Even with the regional fuel grants scheme subsidising country prices by one or two cents a litre, regional motorists are paying more GST than those in the city.20109Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Nearly all the propositions that the member for Hotham puts to the House are false. If you are looking at what somebody is paying to the government, you have got to look at the tax they pay to the government net of the grant, which is what the RACV failed to do. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It is not what they have failed to do. It is what you failed to do. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. The Treasurer—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Yes, and he is not answering.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now defying the chair. The Treasurer has the call. CT4Mr COSTELLO—When you are talking about the amount you pay to the government, I would have thought you netted off the amount the government pays back to you. I would have thought that was a pretty obvious proposition. When you look at the amount you pay to the government—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You don't count it twice.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned. CT4Mr COSTELLO—However loudly he yells and interjects, it does not make him any more right. I would have thought it was an obvious proposition that, if you wanted to look at what somebody paid to the government, you had to net off what the government paid back by way of a grant, which is what the RACV failed to do.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It goes to the question of relevance. The RAA did net it out. He has done it twice. He has misled—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is painfully aware that the Treasurer was being as relevant as any Treasurer could be in response to the question asked. The Treasurer has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Once one did that in relation to all of the RACV prices, as published in that newspaper, the fact of the matter was that they were paying less to the government in tax net grant than the metropolitan price quoted in relation to Melbourne. That was the obvious point, and it was a point that I would have thought was incontrovertibly proved. I have not seen anybody other than the member for Hotham try to dispute it. On different prices—DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has already been warned and is in a position in which I ought to take instant action, as he must know.CT4Mr COSTELLO—That being the case, I will let you, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The action taken against the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is in the hands of the chair, not the Treasurer. The Treasurer still has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Thank you.2010915:08:0020109Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Can the minister inform the House of the turnaround in Australia's export performance. Is the minister aware of alternative trade policies that would pose a serious threat to our trading relations with developing nations in particular?20109Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for Groom for the question. Obviously the exports that are going out of his particular part of Queensland are very important to the local economy, as are the excellent export results that are being achieved by Australia's exporters. The figures that were released for the month of July indicated that there has been an increase of two per cent in exports over the month of June this year and that July's figures this year are 27 per cent higher than those achieved in July 1999. The year to date total export effort out of Australia now stands at $128¼ billion compared to the 1998-99 financial year figure of $114 billion, which is a significant effort by Australia's exporters. Leading the way are rural exports out of all parts of Australia, which have increased by 12 per cent over June in 2000 and are actually up 23 per cent on July 1999. Transport equipment in the area of manufacturing has significantly increased—with the opportunities presented by new market access openings across the world, it has increased by 34 per cent over the previous month. Services exports rose by 26 per cent to $2.8 billion. I might add, a large part of that are educational services that we are exporting to the world. Last week, I had meetings in Indonesia with my counterpart in Indonesia, and the minister for education is doing a fantastic job in Australia in attracting university students from overseas into Australia. We have some 18,000 university students in Australia from Indonesia alone. Of course at this particular time of the year 2000, travel services exports have risen by 62 per cent, obviously in the lead-up to the Olympic Games. It is going to be a great export income generator in the Australian economy this year. So all in all it is a very, very good report card thus far this year for Australia's export industries, generating a significant percentage of our GDP in this country and a percentage that we want to see continue to increase because of the in excess of 1.7 million jobs that Australia's exporting industries sustain within our economy. This result is obviously the result of sound economic management by our government over a number of years as well as the pursuit of greater market access globally and as well as continued support programs such as the EMDG scheme that successive coalition governments including this one have supported and will continue to support into the future, which will continue to facilitate exports into the future.The question was asked: what are the threats to increased exports in the future? Quite obviously, the return to a Labor government would be a significant threat to the economy of Australia. We have not had a clear indication of economic policy by the Australian Labor Party in terms of what they are going to do with the sound measures that we have put into place which have underpinned the export effort Australians have taken advantage of. But, more importantly, some of the current threats to our exports and our relations with developing countries come from the real masters of the Australian Labor Party—and that is the union movement and those people like Mr Dougie Cameron of the AMWU, who ran a very strong debate against free and fair trade in Hobart, and I would imagine supported by some of the socialist left on the front bench—Opposition members interjecting—SU5Mr VAILE—I am sure you supported him. I am sure that the shadow minister for finance supported him. Where do we expect Dougie Cameron to be next week? I am sure he will be outside the WEF, not inside. At least Sharan Burrow will be inside supporting the opportunity for increased trade and exports for Australian industries. I am sure Dougie Cameron will be outside marching with the protesters.2011015:13:0020110Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer him to the final report of the Innovation Summit Implementation Group released yesterday. Is the minister aware that yesterday's report recommends the reinstatement of decent research and development incentives and the establishment of an industry placement scheme for university students? Minister, didn't your government slash R&D expenditure in 1996 and abolish the Commonwealth's industry places scheme in 1997? Will you accept the report's recommendations to reverse these short-sighted decisions?20110Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPActing Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question. The government has, it should be pointed out, retained the R&D tax concessions at 125 per cent. They are still substantial. We have significantly expanded the use of targeted grants through the R&D Start Program. We have significantly expanded the Technology Diffusion Program. We have increased support for business R&D and innovation to some $850 million. As expected, changes to the R&D system to remove rorts—so enthusiastically supported particularly by the shadow Treasurer!—have lowered the measured level of expenditure on research and development but substantially increased the proportion of genuine R&D. We had had a system that had been subjected to ongoing abuse—ongoing rorting—and we wanted to clean that up. In terms of the Miles report, yes, we have received the report from the Innovation Summit Implementation Group, which of course was chaired by Mr David Miles. We will also receive the first report of the science capability review in October. We recognise the importance of these things. We will be responding to them in due course, but I believe that the government's record is a sound one and we can be relied upon to ensure that Australia's R&D needs in the future are met.2011115:16:0020111Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister outline to the House what steps the government has taken to ensure that doctors in regional Australia are available and are properly remunerated for performing after-hours service? Is the minister aware of recent claims that doctors in regional areas are not being properly remunerated for performing these services or indeed that in some parts of regional Australia access to GP services after hours has disappeared?20111Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for Herbert for his question. I am aware of those claims. In a speech in Townsville the Leader of the Opposition made the following assertion:You will find in regional Australia in particular access to GPs after hours has already disappeared.He went on:Doctors are not being properly remunerated to be able to provide those after hours services.These statements did not ring true and I had them checked out. It was somewhat difficult to analyse them by rural and remote classification, but I have been able to do it and I thought honourable members might be interested. The first thing to look at is the schedule fee for a general practitioner when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Finance in February 1996, on leaving government. A GP leaving his home and going to someone else's home at midnight would have a schedule fee of $46.20. If the Leader of the Opposition had this in his mind, I can understand why he would think GPs were not being properly remunerated. In fact, today the GP would get a schedule fee of $69.65, an increase of more than 50 per cent in four years. The fact is that the government introduced new item numbers for unsociable hours for general practice after-hours visits and this led to a very great increase in GPs' remuneration for after-hours services.The second thing that happens with after-hours services in rural and remote areas is that they access a thing called the Practice Incentive Program—and again I can understand the Leader of the Opposition not understanding this, because it was not available when he was last in government. A GP today can access an after-hours loading for being available or making available other doctors to cover their patients.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga!8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—In the electorate of Herbert there are 113 doctors on the Practice Incentive Program and they get an average of $2,400 each just for the after-hours component of the Practice Incentive Program. In an electorate such as Dawson, the honourable member might be interested to know that in her electorate 146 doctors get an average of $3,060.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga!8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—So here we have a schedule fee going up by more than 50 per cent and the Leader of the Opposition obviously apologising for the pathetic effort that he had when he was finance minister. As to the second point I would make, the Leader of the Opposition says that in some areas of regional Australia `access to GPs after hours has already disappeared'. Figures are hard to come by because the item number descriptors have changed but they have been constant since 1997. If you look at the number of GP after-hours services being billed in rural and remote Australia only—that is, RARMA classification 3 to 7—in 1997 there were 143,000 services; in 1999-2000 158,500 services. So the number of GP after-hours services in the last two years has gone up 11 per cent. PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga is defying the chair.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—So here we have a Leader of the Opposition aimlessly wandering around the countryside, saying that we are not doing anythingwith not the vaguest clue what he is talking about.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga!8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—My advice would be: if you ever want to talk about health again, get someone who knows what they are talking about.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—When the House has come to order I will call the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I was surprised. I was taken aback by an interjection.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Standing orders do not allow a lot of tolerance for surprise. They merely indicate you can get straight to your question.2011215:20:0020112Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I also refer him to the final report of the Innovation Summit Implementation Group released yesterday. Is the Acting Prime Minister aware of the report's recommendation to establish new incentives for incremental research and development and for smaller businesses to cash out an equivalent benefit? Is the minister also aware that these options are not costed in the report because the group was refused access to the modelling facilities of the Commonwealth government? Minister, why didn't the government provide access to its modelling facilities to help the group produce a policy model in this most important of areas?20112Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I have to say at the outset that, in accordance with well established practice on this side of the House, I am not going to accept at face value the proposition you have just put to me. Given the reality that this relates to the portfolio area of the member in the other place more closely than to anybody else's, I will see whether he wishes to add to that answer and come back to you.2011215:22:0020112Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the positive contribution that Australia is making to Asian regional economic stability?20112Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Menzies for his question and indicate the great job that he is doing as the member for Menzies and the contribution that he makes in this place. It is well known that Australia has made a substantial contribution to regional economic stability through its assistance with IMF packages in Thailand and offers of assistance in Korea and Indonesia. This coming weekend another contribution which will be made is Australia's hosting of the World Economic Forum's Asia-Pacific summit, the first time to be held in Australia, for almost 1,000 world leaders from government and commerce who will be gathering in Melbourne. I think it is not only a good thing for Melbourne but a good thing for Australia. The summit is entitled `Asia-Pacific in the 21st century: leveraging the new drivers of growth'. It is apposite that this should be held in Australia because Australia has been recognised by the OECD as one of only six OECD economies which have been able to increase productivity and harness the new economy, the others being the United States, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands and Norway. It was disciplined macro-economic settings, including a budget balanced and strong prudential regulation and institutions, that helped Australia survive the Asian financial crisis which claimed many of our neighbours. I also pay tribute to the fact that there are indeed some members of the Labor Party who are taking part in the World Economic Forum. I think the Premier of Victoria is taking part in it.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—He's okay.CT4Mr COSTELLO—He is okay because he is taking part in it. But I regret to say it is not all of the Australian Labor Party that supports the World Economic Forum. There are important elements of the Australian Labor Party which apparently are going to attack the World Economic Forum, as announced by Mr Doug Cameron, who says he is going along to demonstrate with the ACTU and the Trades Hall Council. The Trades Hall Council and the ACTU are no mere casual acquaintances of the Labor Party. The trade union movement formed the Labor Party and funds the Labor Party. It has 60 per cent of the votes in the Labor Party. The trade union movement owns the Labor Party, and the trade union movement apparently is going to be on the streets outside whilst members of the parliamentary Labor Party are on the inside taking part. Again, the Labor Party is walking both sides of the street, or in this case both sides of the barricade, opposing what will be a very important conference for Australia and for Melbourne. Perhaps even more worryingly, the S11 web site is now reporting that a branch meeting of the CFMEU on 13 July heard the state secretary announce that building workers would participate in the demo. These are building workers who pay dues to the Labor Party. The state secretary also endorsed the use of CFMEU first-aid representatives. The assistant secretary said he would organise a large marquee to be erected at the front of the Crown Towers to house the first-aid crew. One might well ask why the CFMEU are going down with a first-aid station to the World Economic Forum if they were not expecting trouble. Why would they be setting up a first-aid station if they were not expecting trouble? The CFMEU might say that is a false report on the S11 web site. If it is, I would call on the CFMEU leadership to say it is false, to distance themselves from the S11 web site and to make it clear that no constituent part of the Labor Party is going to be demonstrating against the World Economic Forum in Melbourne. I would go one further: I would call on the Leader of the Opposition to call on all the constituent parts of the Labor Party, including Mr Cameron and the CFMEU, and to make it clear that he as the leader of the Labor Party will not be brooking any demonstrations against this important event for Melbourne and Australia. A real leader would stand up and would make it clear. We saw yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition said he was going to suspend from caucus the member of the Left who made the statement about the toilet brush on the Titanic. He went about his search for the member of the Left with a blindfold and earmuffs on for the rest of the day. Today we had a member of the Right, which dobbed in the Left for making the statement, say, `There is a terrible slur on the Left today—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is not even remotely—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is well aware that he needs to be recognised by the chair. The only hesitation on my part is waiting for members on my right to exercise the courtesy the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I go to relevance, Mr Speaker. This is in no way related to the question asked of the Treasurer, and we on the side of the House are sick of being subjected to foul abuse.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition makes a valid point of order. I was listening to hear the Treasurer relate the incident he had just illustrated to the question asked.CT4Mr COSTELLO—This forum is an opportunity to get together—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Like your search for who forged documents.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman is warned!CT4Mr COSTELLO—to promote economic growth, to raise living standards, which is not only in the interests of Australians but in the interests of the developing world, who are the biggest beneficiaries or amongst the beneficiaries of those who enter the international trading system. For people in Asia in particular over the last decade, it has been the entry of the newly industrialised economies of Asia into the world trading system and into the international trading system, with the foreign investment that that has brought, that has given them economic growth and the best chance they have had in centuries to raise their living standards.The World Economic Forum is an opportunity for people who are committed to economic growth to get together. It is the first time that it has been held outside of Europe. It is a big, positive stand both for Australia and for Melbourne. That is indicated by the fact that the Labor Party Premier of Victoria is going to be on the inside. What I cannot understand is why the paymasters of the Labor Party are going to be on the outside, and I cannot understand why the federal Labor Party leader cannot condemn them and call on them to call off those demonstrations. That would be leadership, that would show that he is truly committed to an international trading system and that would show that he is prepared to stand up to the union paymasters, as he ought to be doing in the national interest.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Personal Explanations2011415:31:0020114Mr LEE,MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?MG4Mr LEE,MPMr LEE—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.MG4Mr LEE,MPMr LEE—During question time, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs accused me of being the source of certain information on AM. He quoted as evidence his search of Hansard which found, he claimed, that I was the only shadow minister to use the phrases `poisoned chalice' and, on another occasion, `Titanic'. I have done the same search of Hansard, and it reveals in fact that the Leader of the House used the same phrases.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell needs to indicate where he has been misrepresented.MG4Mr LEE,MPMr LEE—I deny the minister's claim. You're as good a detective as you are a minister for education.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. The Leader of the House will resume his seat. When the Speaker is on his feet, it is customary for every member to be silent. This is not a new rule, Member for Chifley; this is a rule that has existed for a very long period of time. If it is not possible for the chair to get absolute silence, no matter who is the occupier of the chair, then clearly the House is fraught with all sorts of difficulties. I know the member for Paterson sought the call. The member for Paterson may not have been aware of the fact that the reason I had not called him was that the Chief Opposition Whip was also seeking the call. Questions to the Speaker201142011415:32:0020114McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00— Could you advise the House whether there are any proposals by you or the President to outsource the maintenance of Parliament House?20114SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The question is one with wide ramifications, and I will investigate before coming back with a particular commitment to the Chief Opposition Whip. I can indicate to him that the question takes me by surprise, because I am not aware of anything at this stage.2011415:33:0020115Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—On 1 June I asked a question on notice of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs relating to the death of a Vietnam veteran. As some three months have elapsed since that question was asked, I would be most appreciative if you could pursue the minister under standing order 150 and obtain an answer for me.20115SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Cowan as the standing orders provide.2011515:33:0020115Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Mr Speaker, under the same standing order, could you write to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, seeking explanations for the delay in providing answers to questions on notice 1125, 1431 and 1668 respectively?20115SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Calare. I now thank the member for Paterson for his forbearance and recognise him.Personal Explanations2011515:34:0020115Mr HORNE,MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—Actually, Mr Speaker, you are supporting a theory I have that I am so small that I cannot be seen! I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented, other than by his own comment?UU5Mr HORNE,MPMr HORNE—Most maliciously.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson may proceed.UU5Mr HORNE,MPMr HORNE—During question time the Acting Prime Minister, in response to a question from the member for Port Adelaide regarding petrol pricing, claimed that I was not in the House, and that has been written into Hansard. In fact, records will show that I never left the House; I was here all the time. I would like that to be corrected.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson has corrected the record by the action he has taken.15:35:0020115Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to apologise for being disorderly whilst you were on your feet. I was merely trying to attract the attention of the honourable member for Mallee, who was standing.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Chifley for his apology and for drawing my attention to something of which the chair was not aware.Documents2011520115Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:The six month report on Co-Regulatory Scheme for Internet Content Regulation—September 2000.Debate (on motion by Mr Beazley) adjourned.Miscellaneous2011515:36:0020115Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence. I was challenged by the Treasurer to call upon Australians who are participating in any demonstrations against the World Economic Forum to do so peacefully.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I need to indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that indulgence is extended to him in this unusual circumstance. I will allow him to proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Let me take one or two points from the Treasurer's statements. Firstly, he said that I should urge them to call off the demonstration. However, I draw attention to the fact that the Prime Minister quite rightly said that it is everybody's right in this country to peacefully demonstrate. That is what the Prime Minister said.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The chair will take instant action to bring the House to silence if the courtesy that I expect to be extended to the Leader of the Opposition when a member from the opposition takes a point of order is not extended to the Leader of the House.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—My point of order is that the indulgence was given, as the Leader of the Opposition made it clear, to respond to the invitation by the Treasurer. What he has commenced to do is to justify his failure to condemn the action of these people. That is clearly not what the indulgence was given for. He wants to debate his weakness as a leader.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Indulgence is a matter extended entirely at the courtesy of the chair. If at any stage I believe that the Leader of the Opposition is in fact breaching that courtesy or introducing new material into a matter that warrants an explanation, I will oblige him, as he knows, to return to his chair.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I will continue. I note that the Prime Minister did not urge that the demonstrations not occur but did recognise the right of those demonstrations to take place. I recognise the right of Australians to demonstrate peacefully on any political subject at any particular venue while observing the law as they do it. I would encourage any Australians participating in demonstrations associated with this forum to do so legally and non-violently. I do not believe that there is room for violent demonstrations in this country on any matter at all. I do not believe in community violence visited upon work forces or visited upon conferences or against any other Australians. I would urge those participating in those demonstrations and I would urge those who are yet to participate but who may well participate in those demonstrations to conduct themselves peacefully. But I would not for one minute stand in this place, in this democratic forum, and deny Australians the right to stand up and demonstrate on a matter close to their hearts.WI4Reith, Peter, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Griffith is now warned. I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition would have considered that that was an entirely reasonable action on the part of the chair, hardly warranting the sort of action that was provoked.Matters of Public Importance201162011610000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The Howard government's undermining of Australia's support for international human rights principles.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:41:0020116Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—Seven days ago we witnessed the spectacle of three cabinet ministers, including the minister at the table, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, assembled in a committee room of this parliament for a joint press conference—a conference which marked a new and shameful low in this government's human rights policies. Those three ministers—the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—did not gather to announce any new commitment of resources to promote respect for international human rights, they did not gather to announce new initiatives or enhanced programs on human rights; instead, they gathered to squeal about international scrutiny of the government's human rights record. They sledged the UN Human Rights Committee system and announced the first steps in what may prove to be a comprehensive downgrading of Australia's involvement in multilateral human rights protection. For good measure, they announced that the government will not sign or ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. This is the very protocol that Australia played a central role in negotiating and which we effectively endorsed when it was unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly last year. Last week's was a disgraceful performance and one most damaging to our international standing. I have seen speculation in the press as to the motivation behind what was truly a wretched exercise. The government, for its part, claims to have been interested in the committee reform issue for some time. No-one on either side of the House doubts that a measure of reform is required. But what is of course needed is an enhanced effectiveness and authority for that committee system, not the calculated undermining that we are seeing from the government at the moment. Let there be no doubt that the government's response has been prompted by its desire to strike back, to retaliate against the UN criticism of the abysmal record of this government on indigenous issues and reconciliation.Along the way, the government has looked to hit some of the hot buttons. It has looked to evoke a predictable response from the Hansonite fringe. When Foreign Minister Downer declared at the end of March that the government would give the United Nations a bloody nose, it certainly was not the international audience he had principally in mind. The cheers he sought were those of the hard-core One Nation voters. But the international audience is still there and the response, not only from the likes of Mary Robinson and other senior UN officials but across the length and the breadth of the international community, has overwhelmingly been one of profound regret at the spectre of Australia—once a human rights leader—turning and attacking the core international institutions, the very institutions responsible for defending universal human rights and political freedoms. The only applause likely to be forthcoming from this tragic exercise will be from the despots and the likes of Burma's military rulers—indeed, from all of those seeking to stymie international scrutiny of their human rights violations. What a change from the early rhetoric of this government, the rhetoric of the 1996 campaign for Australia to win a seat on the UN Security Council. Back then, John Howard and Alexander Downer could not have been more supportive of all that the United Nations stands for. We were parading our credentials as a good international citizen, comprehensively engaged with and committed to all that the United Nations stands for, including through all its forums, particularly those engaged in the defence of universal human rights. But that was four years ago. What do we have this week? Last Thursday, we had the member for Wentworth for one, the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and now chairman of this parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, in a contemptible performance, dismissing the UN Human Rights Committee system as `just a theme park for indulging the fantasies of the global non-government organisation guilt movement'. Yesterday in this House, we had the revelation of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs with his advocacy of withdrawal from the individual complaints process of the CAT—the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This House learnt that last December the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade warned Mr Ruddock's department that withdrawal from the complaints process of the CAT would damage Australia's credibility and undermine our UN reform efforts. It might also be perceived, said DFAT, both domestically and internationally, as demonstrating a lack of commitment to human rights and subject Australia to criticism from non-governmental organisations and the wider community. Despite this, Minister Ruddock yesterday refused to rule out Australian withdrawal from the CAT complaints processes. Indeed, he foreshadowed the deportation of refugees who would otherwise be able to appeal to the Committee Against Torture as victims likely to face violation of their human rights in their home country.The debate over the last week has been characterised by repeated and persistent government misrepresentations. Time and again the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister have sought to fuel prejudice and xenophobic tendencies. Again and again they have spoken in terms of unelected and unrepresentative UN committees, of violations of Australian sovereignty and of international interference in the domestic affairs of Australia. They have claimed that Australia has been singled out unfairly, that serious human rights abuses by other countries are ignored, that criticisms of Australia are trivial and that non-government organisations enjoy a favoured position ahead of national governments.Let me take the opportunity to invoke the arguments of Justice Elizabeth Evatt in repudiating those falsehoods. Justice Evatt served with distinction on the UN Human Rights Committee from 1993 until this year. She was one of only four female members of the committee. She also served as Chairperson of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women from 1989 to 1992 and as a member of that committee from 1984. Her work for human rights has been internationally applauded, but she was never consulted in the course of the government's so--called `review' of the United Nations treaty system. This House should recognise a few simple facts. They are well expressed in the statement issued by Elizabeth Evatt yesterday.The UN treaty committee systems do not consist of unelected, faceless UN bureaucrats. In fact, committee members are nominated and elected by the governments, including Australia's, which have agreed to respect each human rights treaty. Australia influences the composition of the committees by its vote and otherwise. Indeed, most members of the UN Human Rights Committee are judges or law professors who take time out of their professional lives to serve in an honorary capacity on the committee. The UN Human Rights Committee has certainly not unfairly singled out Australia for criticism. All countries that have agreed to be bound by the UN human rights treaties fall under the committee's spotlight in turn. Last year, the Human Rights Committee examined reports from Cambodia, Canada, Ireland, Morocco, South Korea, Kuwait and Kyrgysztan. Australia's reports were considered by three UN treaty bodies only this year because of late reporting by this government. And certainly the UN treaty committees do not ignore major violations of human rights by other countries. On the contrary, the Human Rights Committee calls on countries facing grave situations, countries like Bosnia and Rwanda, to provide special reports, and they do so. Many countries, including Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Cambodia, have been severely criticised for their violations. They have been criticised for arbitrary killings, brutal treatment of prisoners or trafficking of women and children. These are the stock-in-trade of the vital work that is done by the United Nations in this area. It is appropriate to point out that the UN Committee Against Torture, the very one that has been in the spotlight this week, has challenged China in respect of the many allegations of torture and deaths. They are allegations which were brought to that committee's attention by non-government organisations. The committee has also done some very valuable work in respect of China's failure to ensure effective legal protection against torture. These are the sorts of protections that this government would place at risk by having Australia step away from our vital commitments in this area. The government has repeatedly referred to Australia's generally high standard of human rights—no-one doubts that. This has been readily recognised by each and every one of the UN committees. They go out of their way to do so. But of course it is their duty to identify the protection of rights in the countries they examine and to focus on that. That is what they are set up for. After all, that is what scrutiny is all about. It is hardly surprising in those circumstances that most of the treaty committees have drawn attention to the inequalities experienced by indigenous men, women and children in Australia and indeed to the circumstances of the detention of asylum seekers in this country at the moment. These are and must be issues of concern to all of us, but they are issues which this government seeks to run away from, seeks to hide from and seeks to avoid scrutiny of. As to the claim that the UN treaty committee process wrongly intrudes into domestic affairs, this again is an absolute falsehood. These committees have been established under international conventions, to which in each case Australia is a party. We have voluntarily accepted these obligations and this scrutiny. The committees are mandated to assess whether the laws and practices in each country meet its treaty obligations. Their recommendations are not legally binding, but they do carry moral weight. Nor is it correct to say that human rights issues can only be dealt with domestically. The fulfilment of the obligations under human rights treaties is a legitimate matter of international concern. It certainly is for all of us sitting on this side of the House. Let me repeat: Australia has a responsibility to pursue concerns about human rights violations in other parts of the world. In order to do so, we must be prepared to welcome international scrutiny of all aspects of our own human rights performance. We cannot hide from it; we have to be open about it. That is something that this government repeatedly avoids. As to the claim that the committees give undue weight to the information provided to them by NGOs such as Amnesty International, members should be aware that the basis of the committee's human rights work is the written report of the government of each country, supplemented by the country's oral statements and responses to questions. No-one else has the right to speak or to take part in the formal proceedings of the committee. Information from NGOs is provided informally and may result in questions being put to the government on issues that are not explained in its report. Today, the countries around the globe which do not want their human rights performance to be queried by NGOs are warmly welcoming the Australian government's position that NGO input should be downgraded in importance.Everyone is agreed that the UN human rights system is in need of reform and additional resources but, in acting to put limits on Australia's future cooperation with the treaty committees, the Howard government is undermining the authority and the effectiveness of those same committees. Its approach, borne out of pique and domestic political calculation, could not be more counterproductive. The government is saying that it will be the arbiter of human rights in Australia; at the same time, it reserves its right to criticise other countries for their human rights performances. It is a hypocrisy which leaves Australia without a shred of international credibility, which is something, as has been witnessed in this House, that has been conspicuously lacking in the government's approach to one of the most intractable human rights issues—namely, the appalling violation of human rights and political freedoms in Burma. Yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs stood in this House and again defended the government's decision to snuggle up to Burma's military regime. As he did so, he might well have recalled his statement on 23 May 1996, when he heaped praise on Aung San Suu Kyi on the occasion of her appointment to the Companion of the Order of Australia. Back then, he said that the award was conferred in recognition of her outstanding leadership and the great personal courage of her struggle to bring democracy to Burma. He added that she was a remarkable woman—an international symbol of the Burmese people's desire for democracy. Now, four years on, the government's criticism of human rights in Burma is muted indeed. Last week it was Australia that refused to join the US and Britain in seeking access to Aung San Suu Kyi as she was blockaded by the Burmese military. Minister Downer made no statement until well after those of Kofi Annan, Mary Robertson, Madeleine Albright and Robin Cook—and, even then, it was a minimalist response. The fact is that this government has quietly walked away from Aung San Suu Kyi. It has walked away from the National League for Democracy. Later on this month, the government will maintain its human rights seminars with officers hand-picked by Burma's military leaders.You can guarantee one thing: those military leaders will take great comfort from the veneer of respectability afforded to them by Alexander Downer and this government. No doubt today those military leaders are quietly applauding the government's assault on the UN human rights system. They do so because they know that it is only that spotlight that will force them to reform themselves as South Africa had to all those years ago. (Time expired)15:56:0020120Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—It is a great pleasure to have the second opportunity in the last 4½ years to speak in an MPI. So keen and interested is the Labor Party in foreign affairs issues that this is only the second time. The government's ambition is to make the United Nations committee system work effectively. It is our view that for as long as those committees lack proper international credibility they will be ineffective. We are frank about the sorts of reforms we want for those committees, and many countries agree with us.The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, herself said that these committees need urgently to be reformed. There are many criticisms from her, from other governments, from foreign ministers, from foreign ministries, and so on. I notice with interest that the opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, the member for Kingsford-Smith, says that he wants reform. This parliament is a forum where people should be made accountable—not just the government but the opposition. So too our media should make accountable not just the government but also the opposition. I would like to see from the opposition a list of the reforms that they would like to see to United Nations committees. The opposition say they want reforms. Name one. What reforms do the opposition want?I do not think the member for Kingsford-Smith has a clue. He could go back to his adviser and ask him what he should say in answer to that question, but he himself does not have a clue. He has no idea what reforms he wants. The Labor Party says it wants reforms, but it does not know what reforms it wants. The government have said we want reforms, and we have been courageous enough to come out and express which reforms we want. More than that, we are prepared to go to the international community and argue for those reforms. Why? Because we do want the United Nations committee system to work effectively and not to be institutions which lack international credibility. If they lack credibility in this country, they will lack much more credibility in other countries. I know the feral Left would not agree with this, but Australia is doing the United Nations committee system a favour by blowing the whistle and saying, `Look, we can't just have glib phrases about reform; we have to knuckle down and do something about it.' The second thing I would say is that, since the Labor Party has been in opposition, rather ironically the member for Kingsford-Smith and other members of the Labor Party have talked strongly about their commitment to human rights. How sincere is Labor's commitment to human rights? They talk big about human rights. Of course, in opposition you can say anything, but what did they do in the 13 years they were in government? Their experience in government was not a fleeting experience; it was a 13-year experience.It is, I am afraid, a very disappointing record. First of all, the Labor Party talks with passion about human rights in China. When they are in opposition they are deeply concerned about human rights in China. But what did they do in government about human rights in China? It was such a passionately important issue and one that `we feel outraged about'—as they say now in opposition—but what did they actually do? Once a year they went along to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and co-sponsored a resolution condemning China's human rights abuses. They did that once a year, and every single year that resolution was defeated. Every year the Labor Party co-sponsored that resolution it was defeated.Within months of our coming into government that resolution came up for reconsideration and we did not have time to consider the policy before that vote, so we went along with the previous Labor government's vote. But by 1997 we had had plenty of time to think about what we were going to do to try to improve human rights in China. Did we want an electoral stunt to co-sponsor a resolution, knowing it would be defeated, and think that that was all we ever needed to do? No, we did not. We thought it was a political stunt and that we had better start the hard work of trying to improve human rights in China by doing something honest and constructive. We said that we would not continue with the human rights resolution; instead, we would set up a bilateral human rights dialogue with China—and I think, from recollection, we were the second country to do so. We said we would sit down once a year, alternately in Beijing and in Canberra—or in Australia somewhere—and go through the full suite of human rights issues we were concerned about with people who had some capacity to do something about those issues. Out of that human rights dialogue we developed the Human Rights Technical Assistance Program.We did not do that for party political reasons or for domestic political reasons, or for the purpose of getting Margo Kingston or Mike Seccombe or other passionate supporters of left causes in the Sydney Morning Herald to write nice things about us. We do not do it for those reasons; we do it because we think it is the honourable and decent thing to do. And if I may say so, it is to the everlasting credit of my department that they have been tremendously supportive of these types of initiatives. The simple fact is that we have done an honourable thing in terms of human rights in China, and this has been roundly condemned by the opposition's spokesman and the opposition. I must admit it did make people on this side of the House chuckle when Labor accused us of venality when we set up the human rights dialogue. I am not sure that the member for Kingsford-Smith knew what venality meant, but it certainly made us reflect. In any case, this is going to be an incremental process. China is not going to march into the glittering uplands of liberal democracy overnight; we all know that. I frankly think that the more countries that follow the sort of lead we have shown in how to manage human rights with China the better. When it is complemented by the European Union, which it has been—by countries like Norway, Switzerland—and a number of other countries, like Canada, the more this process continues and the more we are going to start to exercise serious influence. The member for Kingsford-Smith also fulminates about Burma. The overthrow of democracy in Burma, the overthrow of Aung San Suu Kyi, by the Burmese military junta happened while the previous Labor government were in office. Obviously they condemned it, and quite rightly so. They made a decision, which may or may not have been the right decision—and let us say for the sake of this debate that it was the right decision—to cut off all aid to Burma and to terminate many of the contacts we had with Burma but, by the way, not to cut off links with the Burmese regime. They did not sever diplomatic relations. So this sort of hysteria about how we engage with Burma and that somehow before we came along the Australian government did not is, of course, nonsense. The previous government maintained diplomatic relations with Burma. When I became the foreign minister we had an ambassador in Rangoon, or Yangon, and they had an ambassador here, I suppose. We have not cut diplomatic relations with Burma. I asked myself this question: did cutting off all aid to Burma, maintaining diplomatic relations and doing nothing else, lead to an improvement in human rights in Burma? The answer was that it did not. When I have discussed this issue with other foreign ministers around the world, it is a point they readily concede regardless of what their particular policies may be.We ran this policy in this country. It was run in Western countries. Not all of our regional friends and neighbours ran the same policy but Western countries, with whom the opposition spokesman consistently aligns himself, did. It is a policy that has now had 10 years to work and nothing has been achieved. Much is made by Paul Daley from the Age and the opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, the member for Kingsford-Smith, about some cable that was sent from Trevor Wilson, our ambassador in Rangoon, saying that he was not very optimistic about improvements in human rights in Burma. That is under the existing policy. There are no votes in the Burma issue. What we have said is that we ought to do something honourable and honest and to try to contribute to an improvement in human rights in Burma. That is all we have said. We have set up a very modest program of human rights training conducted by Monash University on behalf of the Australian government and we get childish political points from the member for Kingsford-Smith, who brings to foreign policy the mental age of five or six.I think that Australia is admired for being honourable in its attempt to try to achieve an improvement in human rights in Burma. The existing policies of the West have not worked and Australia says, `We want to make a difference.' The Burmese government said—and I am not making any greater claim than this—at a human rights forum in Rotorua, New Zealand, one that is funded by the Australian government, that they would be prepared to set up an independent human rights commission according to the Paris Principles. Do you know what the Paris Principles are? Not a clue. I am with Gough Whitlam—I have just the same view of Laurie as Gough has.Let me just say that I have no idea whether the Burmese will go ahead and do that or whether they will not. But, as I said to the House yesterday, in 10 years I have seen only two positive signs on human rights emerge from Burma. One is that at least they agreed to the human rights training courses from Monash University—promoted by me and the government—and the other is that they have said they will set up an independent human rights commission using Komnas HAM, the Indonesian human rights commission, as a model. They may or they may not, and I am not making any exaggerated claims—I would not dream of doing that—I am just saying that at least we have made an effort. When I go to bed at night and I think about human rights, I like to feel, unlike the member for Kingsford-Smith or the lowbrow sitting over there trying to read a computer, that I have made some sort of a contribution to improving human rights rather than getting a decent story from Margo Kingston, Mike Seccombe or somebody like that in the Fairfax press. It does not matter to me; I take no satisfaction from positives or negatives in the newspapers. But I would like to feel, with a clear conscience, that I have done the honourable and the right thing. I know a lot of members of this parliament would agree with that, and I know the member for Kingsford-Smith would not, because I know he would not care. Finally, on treaties, and human rights treaties in particular, the Labor Party have a clear agenda. One of the things the Labor Party love is complaints mechanisms within the United Nations. Coalition governments and Labor governments have signed the UN conventions. We are proud that we signed the UN human rights conventions and treaties; we certainly are happy about that. We support them. We do not walk away from them at all. But it is Labor who have been the great proponent of the UN human rights complaints mechanisms. We supported the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. You know, my grandfather argued at the end of the last century for the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council, and I think that—over 100 years ago—he was right, and everybody who has argued for that since has been dead right. We should not ever have had appeals to the Privy Council. Why not? Because the Privy Council is in another country.I can say only this: why do people who oppose appeals to the Privy Council think it is a great thing to have appeals mechanisms to some group of people in Geneva under the auspices of the UN? They love it. They think those people know more than we do about how we should run our country. I am perfectly happy with this institution, the House of Representatives, and with the Senate—I am not always very happy with the Senate, but I am happy with it in theory. I am happy with the concept of our democratic parliament, our democratic institutions and the independence of our judiciary. I do not always agree with the judiciary, but I know it is independent and I am proud and happy that our judiciary is independent. I think that in this country, by the standards of the rest of the world, we do a fantastic job of upholding the rights of our people. And that is where the Labor Party and I differ. (Time expired)16:11:0020122Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Now, as the largest crowd of overseas visitors ever to come to this country gathers in Sydney for the Olympics; now, as Australia has the most international media visiting our shores; at this very moment when we have the opportunity to project this country as the creative, open, tolerant and democratic society that we all know it is, we have a little government with its defensive posturing, needlessly escalating a row with the United Nations and its committees.We have three ministers—the good, the bad and the ugly, as the Canberra Times portrayed them—on their way to the Hanson Saloon, holding a joint press conference to denounce the UN committee system because of some criticisms they did not like from UN committees. Like spoiled kids, they say they will not play anymore. How did Australia get itself into this position? Our disengagement with the United Nations committee system began, of course, over this government's shameful attitude towards Aboriginal Australians. Remember that the decision to undertake a review of Australia's participation in the UN committee system back in March arose out of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination's failure to be silenced on mandatory sentencing and indigenous reconciliation. Now, as the end product of this review, we have this press conference from the good, the bad and the ugly—I cannot actually think of who was the good—which announced this government's withdrawal from the UN committee system and refusal to allow UN rapporteurs to visit this country. You would think we lived in North Korea or Burma. The Attorney-General says that Australia has a good human rights record because, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, we do not cut off people's hands. What a standard to compare Australia with! Then we had the sophistry and personal attacks of the foreign minister today at question time regarding the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. UN officials said in press reports today that the federal government submissions—that is, the Australian government submissions—on the development of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women were innovative, and they applauded the inclusion of non-government organisations in the process. One report stated:Australia said the protocol would improve the effectiveness of the convention to deal with complaints of individual and systemic discrimination against women. Now the same government attacks the protocol, saying that it relies too heavily on the NGOs. The documents show that Australia lobbied hard to get more NGO input into these protocols. Now the government spits the dummy and says that it does not want to be involved with this protocol anymore.Late last week we had the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs alarm Australians by claiming that we have a major crisis in our refugee intake policy. We have 17 people who have applied to stay here after the minister has refused them on the basis of their fear of torture. The minister says, `We have to be tough and these applicants were abusing the system'. Let us remember this: it is 17 people in a country of 19 million people. We have had only 4,000 onshore refugees in the last 18 months join our refugee quota. All of these people are being evaluated by our rather tough refugee evaluation system, and most get refugee status. We have had only some 1,500 illegal immigrants in a year compared with 50,000 in the United Kingdom, 100,000 in Germany, and half a million in the United States. Some reason for getting so upset! The government is currently dealing with 17 cases. The latest information from the Office of International Law in the Attorney-General's Department states that 12 remained unresolved and, of the five that have been dealt with, three cases were withdrawn, one was found not to be valid and one has been supported.The point is that torture still exists in some of the countries which these people fear being taken to. That is of course the reason why they apply to the United Nations after being refused by the minister. Now we have the minister writing to withdraw Australia from the UN convention against torture. Let me remind you of what the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said last December when they saw the Australian immigration minister's suggestion that we withdraw from the convention against torture:Your letter suggests that possible withdrawal from the individual complaints process should be kept open as an option. Given the leading role Australia has taken on treaty body reform, withdrawal would damage our credibility and undermine our reform efforts. It might also be perceived, both domestically and internationally, as demonstrating a lack of commitment to human rights and subject Australia to criticism from non-governmental organisations and the wider community—and well it might be. The letter continues: Since there have been only seven cases brought against Australia under this process in the seven years Australia has been a party to the procedure, of which only one has been decided adversely, withdrawal might be regarded as a disproportionate response by the Australian Government. Consequently, DFAT would not be able to support such a step.And a very wise letter that was from the department too. We are yet to have the minister categorically say that he will not withdraw from that particular protocol.How can the minister say, as he did in question time on 4 September, that these people are making manifestly unfounded claims when they have not even been evaluated. It comes as no surprise to this House that the government is once again being hypocritical. I would like you to juxtapose the government's foot stamping on these various UN committees' reports with its attitude during the recent expulsion of the remaining Kosovar refugees. Not six months ago, the government was quite happy to quote the UNHCR in the minister for immigration's press releases. In fact, the minister for immigration included a copy of a report from the UNHCR to validate his report. He used that report of the UNHCR as a crutch in order to validate his heartless decision to remove the last 100 or so Kosovars who in fact came from southern Serbia and who he knew were returning to a place they did not come from and to homes they did not have. I sometimes think that the producers of The Games are writing the political script of this government in the period prior to our highest international exposure before the Olympic Games. But there is a deeper secret at the heart of this wretched exercise spoken of by the member for Kingsford-Smith—this is the secret that the hard men of the Liberal Party are at work. They are at work here on this policy on UN committees, as they are on the policies of immigration, refugees, mandatory sentencing and reconciliation. This is a policy driven by the Minchin-Reith-Textor push.While 250,000 Australians marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge, this government could not bring itself to say sorry to Aboriginal Australians. While Australia, which is open, pluralist and democratic, is welcoming hundreds of thousands of visitors, this mean government is putting limits on the UN human rights committees and their reports on Aborigines, women and refugees. What a tragedy it is today to see what has become of us, to see our once proud tradition as an international human rights leader—the reputation earned by so many, from H.V. Evatt to Malcolm Fraser and Gareth Evans—so reduced. Once world leaders, today we have a Prime Minister about to stand at the historic Millennium Summit at the United Nations, not speaking to advance human rights but to defend his little Australia and his government from an avalanche of criticism and to defend the spectre of Australia as an apologist for the downgrading of human rights, both in world affairs and in our own country. I know that many people in my electorate and around this country think that the government's performance over the last few days on human rights is one of the reasons why it should be defeated at the next election. Like many Australians, I cannot wait to see that day.16:20:0020124Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—This motion today from the member for Kingsford-Smith talks about the Howard government undermining Australia's support for international human rights principles. Let me say that I disagree most strongly with this motion. I propose to illustrate to the House where in fact this government has shown commendable courage and strong action in support of human rights principles in the international arena.Let me say to the previous speaker: I was there and I marched; I did not sit here during the previous tirade, like the member for Swan who sadly seems to think it is all a huge joke and laughs at this very serious topic; and I have not, unlike the member for Melbourne Ports, used distorted statistics to try to advance an argument. He talked about having only 4,000 onshore refugee applications compared with other countries that have taken many more. What he of course ignores totally is the number and the proportion of offshore refugees we have taken in relation to our population. It is that sort of distortion that in fact shows the opposition to be hypocritical on this issue. This government has shown no wavering on Australia's support for international human rights principles. The argument, it seems to me, is about how one pursues that objective. This government has got a good record on human rights. What the Labor Party is all about— 6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca—You want to spoil it.UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—and what the gentleman at the table is trying to interject about—is form, not substance. I think we want to look at the substance of what we can or cannot achieve. I am going to talk about my own experiences in some of these areas. I was pleased to hear the minister in his address talk about what happens in China. I think China is a classic case of where this government have taken action in the human rights field. When we came to government, we had year after year of the previous Labor government standing up and passing meaningless motions—they got absolutely nowhere; they made absolutely no impact at all. What this government have had the courage to do is break from convention, break from the accepted wisdom and say, `We will try and take a new course, a course that, maybe, over a period of time—with a lot of work, a lot of ingenuity and with some patience—may actually be able to have some influence. We as a country alone will not have total influence but, with others, we may have some influence in changing the human rights approach of China.' I met the human rights delegation from China not only this year but also when they came here to Canberra two years ago, and I was on the delegation that went there last year. We sat and raised with the Chinese delegation on each of those occasions a whole raft of concerns about human rights in that country. I have to say—and I said this to the Chinese in Beijing, I have said it here and I have said it to the ambassador—that clearly we are concerned about human rights and the way they deal with human rights in that country. We are concerned about the way they deal with churches; we are concerned about the way they have dealt with Falun Gong; we are concerned about their treatment of the Tibetans and the Dalai Lama; we are concerned about the rule of law. We have put in there aid and practical help to try to advance the situation. I have to say that of course there are improvements, of course there are things happening that we would not agree with, but I defy anybody in this chamber who has any experience of China to say that that society is not a much more open society than it was, say, 10 years ago. It is improving. That is not all down to Australia, but we are helping with the process. It is interesting that in our dialogue with China—in that easing of the human rights situation in China, all is not perfect but it is easing—we have a dialogue at the highest level of any of the countries having a dialogue with China. We have been able to make some significant improvements in that area. It will take a long time, but we are talking about changing the cultural approach of over a billion people who are going through traumatic cultural and economic changes. But we are actually trying to do something practical and sensible to change that situation.The previous speakers on the other side of the House raised the subject of Burma. Of course, Burma is in a terrible state from a democratic and human rights point of view, and nobody has been louder in their condemnation of that government than this government in this country. Of course we would like to see the democratically elected government in that country come to power and we would like to see the present regime abandon its appalling human rights record. But, again, standing up and making feelgood statements will not change the situation. If we can explore new avenues and new initiatives to try to make some difference over a period of time then it seems to me that it is worth a try. I might add in passing that this government has been loud, just recently, in its condemnation of what has happened to people like Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia.When we get down to indigenous affairs, let me make it quite clear that we all in this place recognise the disadvantage of Aboriginal people in this country. Every member of this place understands that issue, and I defy anybody to suggest that members in this place do not want to see that situation rectified. Political parties on both sides have spent a lot of money, and I have made speech after speech acknowledging the good intent of the other side when they were in government. But we have to look at the effectiveness of what is happening. The truth is that both sides of politics, with the best will in the world and after spending lots of money, have had difficulty delivering the results. But that is very different indeed from saying that this country has a deliberate policy of trying to deny rights to Aboriginal people. That is not true. But that is what a lot of the lobby groups that go to the United Nations try to say. We have not taken rights away from Aboriginal people; we have been unsuccessful in lifting their economic condition. We have been unsuccessful in a whole range of areas as a country, and we should not be proud of the fact that we have not solved that as a country, but this government—no more than your party when it was in power—does not have any policies saying we would deny Aboriginal people their rights. They are going to protest at the Olympic Games. Yesterday it was on the news that they have permission from the police to protest. If this government was pursuing the sorts of policies the opposition is suggesting they would not be out there protesting, they would not be allowed to, so there is no legal impediment to indigenous people in this country trying to obtain their rights and trying to better their situation, and I think it is important that we say so. When we come to refugees let us be very clear that no country in the world just opens its borders. This country has accepted a higher proportion of refugees, both onshore and offshore, than any other country in the world.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—Not true.UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—It is absolutely true. The Independent member for Calwell, who is well-known for taking a biased position on these situations, knows that full well. Let me make it also quite clear that when people come here illegally, when people come here under criminal schemes and they are held in camps, they are obviously not going to be put up in the Hilton or somewhere of that sort. But the camps they have been held in have been effectively military camps. In a former life I lived in many military camps under those sorts of conditions, and I have to say that they are not that terrible. I am not advocating that we do what they did in places like Kuala Lumpur or Hong Kong with Vietnamese refugees and so on when conditions were appalling. The conditions in this country are not that unreasonable, and I think it is time that we stood up and said that of course we have a place in this country for genuine refugees but we do not have time for criminal queue jumpers. I think it is time we were quite clear about that.In terms of the United Nations let me say a couple of things. East Timor is an outstanding example of where this country, with the United Nations, has contributed greatly to human rights in the international sphere, and we are respected across the international community for our stand and our actions in that area. But it also needs to be understood that at the United Nations the bureaucracy has often gone mad and that the system is falling apart. Surely the Labor Party is not unaware that the treaty body reform is long overdue. In 1999—last year—there were over 1,000 reports from around the world waiting to be responded to under the six human rights treaties. We know that when we came to government we had to catch up for the Labor Party that had not in fact responded under its obligations under UN treaties in the last six years that it was in government. So you have no credibility on this issue. You have no right to stand in this place and criticise us. Your record is appalling. It seems to me that this government has shown commendable initiative. It has stood up to be counted, often when it is unpopular. I reject the opposition's motion. This government is committed to international human rights, but we try to be effective about it, not just utter platitudes without any real impact. (Time expired)Motion (by Mr Downer) agreed to:That the business of the day be called on. QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister has made this move in order to prevent me from speaking on this MPI, which he knows I have had a long interest in. I am very appalled that he has done this.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! There is no point of order.Business2012720127Motion (by Mr Downer)—by leave—agreed to:That government business orders of the day, as listed on the document being circulated to Members in the Chamber, be discharged.(Quorum formed) 16:35:0020127Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—by leave—I move:That Main Committee order of the day No. 2, government business, and orders of the day Nos 4 to 8, committee and delegation reports, be returned to the House.The orders of the day are shown on the list which has been circulated to members in the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative. 16:36:0020127Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—by leave—I move:That those orders of the day returned to the House in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day be discharged.I do not propose to read the titles from the list which has been circulated to members in the chamber. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous2012710000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 6 September 2000, at 9.40 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Miscellaneous20127Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Private Trusts and Private Companies—Integrity of Means Testing) Bill 2000Criminal Code Amendment (United Nations and Associated Personnel) Bill 2000Bills20127R112820127Debate resumed from 4 September, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Lee moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:(1) notes that 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”.16:38:0020127Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—When I was speaking on this States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 last evening, I made the comment that the figures on how each school will benefit will not be known for another month, yet we are supposed to pass this bill as soon as possible. This concern about lack of information goes to the amendment that the opposition has moved and which I support. It also goes to the adjournment to this bill we sought last evening in an effort to ensure that all the information was available so that it could be debated in full. How are we supposed to fully debate this bill when we do not know the full consequences of its implementation? The trouble is that all school funding is tied up in this bill and if it is not passed then there will be no money for any of the schools. `Pass the bill or no schools get funding' is essentially what this minister and the government are saying. Where I come from, that is called blackmail. It is yet another example of the heavy-handedness and arrogance of this government. One of the most significant changes in this legislation is the move away from the notion of achieving a common standard of resource provisions based on the needs of the students towards a model in which government funding happens first and then parents add on what they can raise by private means—donations, bequests and private investments. Unfortunately, for many parents what they can raise privately is not nearly enough to provide the kinds of resources that schools need. This general lack of resources may be the reason that there is still a large number of Australian teenagers dropping out of the education system. In a review of the government's Jobs Pathway programs by the Dusseldorp Skills Forum, a researcher with that forum, Mr John Spierings, has written:One hundred and eighty thousand, or 14 percent of teenagers [aged 15 to 19] are trying to negotiate the much-vaunted knowledge economy without even the fundamental building blocks of full-time work or participation in further education or training.As reported in the Australian newspaper, Spierings expressed concern that `in a robust economy, very significant numbers of young people are not enjoying the benefits of growth'. The Dusseldorp report suggests that Australian schools are haphazard in providing career advice to students and that some schools appear nervous of outside career counsellors trying to keep in school children who are not performing academically or trying to link them to jobs.The lack of qualified careers advisers has been a concern for some time. I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training which brought down a report entitled Youth employment: a working solution in September 1997. It was quite clear that one of the great concerns that a lot of young people have, and a lot of career advisers themselves have, is the lack of qualified career advisers in our education system. This is a specialised field that needs quite serious attention by the federal government. The suggestion put forward by the shadow minister for education, the member for Dobell, that an incoming Labor government would fund professional development for teachers, would go to overcoming this problem of lack of qualified career advisers. The following quote from the committee report highlights the concern that that committee had on that occasion:The first major problem with careers guidance for young people is that many teachers are ill equipped for the careers guidance role. Teachers, careers guidance officers and students who the Committee spoke with all agreed. It is a systemic problem and not the fault of individual teachers who may, without any specific training, find themselves the careers teacher simply because their teaching load allows time for it. Most are left to draw on their own life experiences, which in many cases is school to university and back to school, when advising students. Typically, there will be one careers teacher, who may or may not be full-time, for as many as 1,000 to 1,200 students.I draw attention to the need for specialised career advisers because, in the Dusseldorp report that I referred to, A window into the future, two concerns were continually raised. Firstly, the long-term unemployment trend—and I think we can say the uncertainty of employment for all Australian but particularly for young people—creates the possibility of continued youth unemployment. Secondly, young people are poorly prepared for the job market. These are the two issues which have come out from this very recent report which the government themselves have endorsed. I move on to the area of special education for students in the bill. Special education for students with disabilities is a particular and growing problem area for both government and non-government schools. The Howard government has broken a 1996 promise—another one—to increase special education funding by $16.5 million. This bill contains only modest increases in funding for students with disabilities in non-government schools and does not increase the overall level of funding for students in government schools. Recent court decisions have strengthened the legal obligations, under antidiscrimination legislation, for non-government schools to enrol students with disabilities if requested by parents. I believe that non-government schools have indicated that they are happy to enrol students with disabilities provided the government funding is adequate to meet the high additional costs they face in meeting the student needs. I think we can appreciate the considerable cost involved in this area of providing additional facilities for students with disabilities.The move from a system of funding based on schools' total resource levels to one based on socioeconomic status will require the funding of special education to be overhauled. Current per capita funding arrangements by the Commonwealth provide the greatest level of assistance to the wealthiest schools—$2,972 extra per student—tapering to nothing for those in the needier category. Most Catholic schools receive $208 per primary student and $306 extra for secondary students. I believe that negotiations with the Catholic Education Commission have been carried out correctly and I do not think there is any suggestion that there has been any underhand move in the negotiations. But I believe that the Catholic schools system still faces a long-term funding problem, and I do not think at this moment that the scheme that has been agreed to will solve its long-term problem.This bill provides extra per capita funding of $522 for all non-government students with disabilities. Moreover, the 5,000 students who currently receive a higher rate will have that maintained at an annual cost of $3.5 million per annum. For government schools this bill has a single per capita rate for special education funding of $102. The bill also provides, for the first time, establishment grants to help new schools, regardless of need, as well as recurrent funding for distance education at the lowest SES funding level. This bill and the education policies of this government simply do not make sense. The wealthier schools get huge increases in government funding while the poorest, most needy schools get next to nothing. The sliding scale of payment is sloping in the wrong direction. It is a bit like the government's tax cuts when it introduced the GST: the wealthiest got the most and the poor got next to nothing. Make the rich richer so that more crumbs fall from the table for those below—that seems to be the logic behind this and the other policies of the government.This debate is about education. It is ultimately about the future of our nation. The questions we must ask ourselves with any piece of legislation are: will this improve the lot of ordinary Australians? Will people be better off? Will it improve the country? This piece of legislation has its positives: schools in the non-government sector are getting more money. More money in education is never wrong—but at what cost? The long-term consequences of this bill are disturbing, to say the least. The policies of this government, as typified in this bill, are divisive and ultimately harmful to society.The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs obviously does not believe in public education. He must believe that the government has no place in providing education to the community. Why else would he invent something like the enrolment benchmark adjustment system? The sole purpose of this is to defund public schools. The EBA system is one where it does not matter if your enrolments increase, you still lose funding. If the proportion of students in private schools increases compared with the number of students in government schools, funding to government schools is reduced. Take Victoria, for example: enrolments up by 7,767 and funding down by $6 million since the introduction of the EBA. In my state of New South Wales, a mere 230 fewer students will cost New South Wales $16.6 million. On the other hand, in Tasmania, where the proportion of students in the public system has actually risen, has the EBA resulted in increased funding? No, it has not. The EBA is a one-way penalty scheme designed with no other purpose than to cut funding from government schools. The education pie has shrunk since this government came to office. More than that, the proportion of funding to government schools has also declined dramatically. In 1996 the government spent 41.5 per cent of the education budget on government schools; by 2003 that figure will have dropped to a mere 32.2 per cent—a much smaller slice of a much smaller pie. 16:49:0020130Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I rise to address the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that I represent in this parliament Australia's largest tropical city. In fact, I represent the twin cities of Townsville and Thuringowa. In representing the educational community in Townsville and Thuringowa, I represent what would probably be a microcosm of what happens elsewhere in the country.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch—Hear, hear!HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—I thank the member for Leichhardt and say to the honourable member that Townsville and Cairns are a lot alike. We have in Townsville and Thuringowa a whole range of schools: from wealthy to poor, from state to private, Catholic and indigenous schools—we have the lot. I find very interesting what has happened over the last four years that the coalition has been in government and what has happened to the schools in my electorate. There has been a consistent improvement across the board. I say that with absolute knowledge of what has happened. There has been a consistent improvement in the private, Catholic and government schools. We hear the opposition criticising the government over what the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs is doing in relation to school funding, yet here we have on the public record the evidence for everybody to see: that the school system is improving. It is improving in the state arena but it is also improving in the private arena, and surely that is a pretty good outcome.Earlier in the piece, as we saw with the government schools system, its schools were losing their customers. What do I mean by that? The parents were voting with their feet; they were taking their children away from state schools. Why were they doing that? Why were they leaving the state schools? That is the question that the government schools have been asking themselves and, to their credit, that is the question that they have been responding to. In responding to the fact that parents now have choice, they have been able to examine themselves and find out what they were doing wrong and how they could improve service to their customers.There were lots of issues in the government schools. For many years they had been very comfortable that the children would come along every year and enrol and they would do the job, until the parents found out that there was a better way. There are some things that are not terribly wonderful to talk about in the parliament. The state system had difficulty in controlling some of the difficult students. The state schools say, quite rightly, `We have to accept every student who comes to our door. How can we not have difficult students?' But now we see the state system responding to that and getting all sorts of mechanisms which in fact help those difficult students to adjust and indeed help them to be a valuable contributing part of the school community. Surely that is a good outcome. I refer to some specific examples. I opened two new blocks at the Annandale State School recently. It was $2.5 million, I think, of federal government money into a government school for new capital infrastructure. Annandale State School is as good a school as you will find anywhere in the Commonwealth of Australia, government or private. It is as good as any school you will find, because the government system is now responding to its customers. Similarly with the Willows State School. I pay tribute to Mrs Carol Buchanan, the principal there. She and her school community have a little motto for the school called `The Willows Way'. In everything that they do, they ask their students, `Is this the Willows way?' It certainly resonates. And that school is as good as you will find anywhere in the primary school community in Townsville-Thuringowa. In the state high school system, I pay tribute to Gail Kirkman, the principal of the Northern Beaches State High School, which is as good a secondary school as you will find anywhere in the system. Yes, I know that we have private schools that have a parent body that are well off. We have schools like Townsville Grammar, the Cathedral School and so on. I think that the facilities that are provided there are very good as well, but of course the government does not provide the same level of support to those very wealthy schools as it does to other schools.I see the opposition jumping up and down and asking why it is that we are giving all this money to private schools and indeed Catholic schools. I go to Ryan Catholic Community School in Townsville and I see Ryan school taking the poorest students. It is a Catholic school where a poor student does not require fees to go to school, and that school does a marvellous job for its particular community. So I see some terrific results out of Dr Kemp's forward-looking policies in education in relation to providing choice, and the results speak for themselves; they are there on the ground. None of this class distinction claptrap that goes on from the opposition—everybody can choose which school they want to go to, and the standards in the various systems are rising so that they will equalise out and people will have the opportunity to choose which school they wish to attend. I note that today there was an item on the news wire from the National Council of Independent Schools Associations accusing the opposition of playing politics with families by attempting to delay a controversial education funding bill. This is the bill we are talking about today. That occurred last night when an opposition member moved a motion in an attempt to delay the bill. That has ramifications that I guess will hurt the parent communities who have to prepare their own family budgets on the fees that the schools charge. It is unfair to families who work so hard to educate their children. Why is the opposition attempting to hurt families who choose to go through an educational institution that is not a government school? Why is that? The answer might lie in the politics of class distinction or it might lie in the politics of unionism and who controls the Labor Party. Wherever it lies, it is wrong. It is time that the opposition recognised that we should have a community that has choice and that we should come to expect, as I believe we can, parallel school systems that each provide exactly the same quality of education that you can get from any other school. I pause to reflect—the member for Leichhardt will back me on this—that it was the opposition who opposed and opposed Dr Kemp's visionary views on the fact that kids ought to be able to read and write when they leave school. That is what it comes down to: they ought to be able to read, write and add up. When we came to government, we saw the facts about the percentage of kids who could not read and write properly—7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch—Shocking. HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—It was shocking; you are right. I think it was to Dr Kemp's eternal credit that he took the hard view. He said, `We are going to fix this.' We were fought by the unions in the Labor states through their not going on with the benchmarking processes, but at the end of the day the government is committed to wanting our kids to come out of school actually being able to read, write and add up.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch—And we got results.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—And we got tremendous results. Those results are now being translated through into the indigenous schools. The Scaffolding project that the minister unveiled at Shalom Christian College in my electorate, one of the very fine indigenous schools that we have, is a landmark. He referred to it in the parliament late last week.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Who started Shalom College? It was brought in under Working Nation with Reverend Blackman.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—Who is a great supporter of the government. In just one year, this project brought forward indigenous youngsters with very poor literacy standards to a level three years above their original level. I agree with you that Shalom is a fantastic college—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—It was a Labor initiative.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—And it was supported by me. It has an aged care facility as well, so it is terrific. In supporting the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000, I am pleased to see that the Commonwealth is renewing its commitment to school education in the 2001-04 quadrennium. Under this bill, funding for Commonwealth programs of financial assistance to the states and territories for government and non-government schools is secured. The funding will be secured; that is why it is important to get this bill through the parliament. The bill implements a number of decisions made in the 1999-2000 budget including: the introduction of the new socioeconomic status, SES, based funding arrangements for non-government schools; additional funding and consequential changes to funding arrangements for the Short-Term Emergency Assistance Program, now renamed the Schools Transitional Emergency Assistance Program; the introduction of a revised structure for Commonwealth programs for targeted assistance for schools; and improved accountability arrangements for the Commonwealth schools program.As you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, the coalition government has a proud record of improving Australia's education system, which was badly neglected under Labor. This bill acknowledges the right of Australian parents to choose the most appropriate schools for their children. It supports the devolution of decision making about education to where it belongs: to the parents and to the communities. It includes communities such as my community of Townsville-Thuringowa and your community of Cairns and Cape York, Member for Leichhardt. Even in tiny places in Cape York, this legislation will devolve that responsibility. It will ensure that we have an education system that is responsive to students' needs. This bill is a major investment in our children and our society. By providing additional funds to schools, particularly those schools in the neediest areas, the government will be able to seek improved outcomes from schools, which will provide a brighter future for Australian students. Those opposite talk about making Australia the knowledge nation, but we are already doing it. This bill will ensure that Australia will be in a better position to make major contributions to our global future and to continue in the fine Australian tradition of innovation and skill. To provide these commitments, the government will appropriate in excess of $18 billion for the coming quadrennium.This is historic legislation, as it includes provision for the new socioeconomic status based funding arrangements. The historic reform provides a more open, objective and fair approach for funding non-government schools. Under the new arrangements, general recurrent funding will be distributed according to need, and schools serving the neediest communities will receive the greatest financial support. This means that parents from all income levels will now have a realistic capacity to choose the most appropriate schooling for their children. Unlike the previous system, this new model will be more responsive to the financial needs of the school. It will not discourage private investment in education, and schools will be able to raise private income without penalty. This bill provides financial assistance for schools to attract students from low income families. The bill offers parents choices which were not available in the past—surely that is a good outcome. The bill allows for the increased funding to schools to be phased in over the quadrennium. Schools that are funded on their SES scores will have their increased funding phased in at the rate of 25 per cent of the increase each year, so by 2004 schools will be fully funded at a new level. It is important to be aware that under this bill no school will be financially disadvantaged by the move to the new SES funding system. No school will be disadvantaged. Under the old system, schools that would otherwise have had their funding reduced under the new arrangements will have their year 2000 per capita entitlements maintained, with the year 2000 dollar rates adjusted annually in line with the latest AGSRC figures. During the 1998 election, the Howard government gave a commitment to protect Catholic systems. This will be honoured under the new SES based funding arrangements. Approved Catholic school systems will be funded on a basis that essentially preserves in real terms the per capita equivalent of their current funding categories in the year 2000. New schools that are not part of the Catholic system will have their entitlement to Commonwealth funding assessed according to an SES based measure of need. This means that new schools that are attended by students from less affluent communities will also be eligible to receive a higher level of Commonwealth assistance. Additional funding for schools experiencing severe financial hardship, or facing problems of viability during the transition arrangements, and establishment grants will be available to assist new non-government schools with costs incurred in their formative years, thus enabling them to be competitive with existing schools.The Howard government believes in choice and equality in our education system, and I referred to that earlier in this address to the parliament. Another winner from this bill are students from distance education schools, and that is certainly something that is prominent in Northern Australia. This bill provides recurrent funding for students receiving education from non-government schools. The coalition government is committed to improving literacy and numeracy standards for all students. A major policy priority of the coalition is to achieve real improvement in the literacy and numeracy skills of Australian children. I would like to pause for a minute and pay tribute to the teachers and staff at the Garbutt State School in Townsville. Garbutt has a very high indigenous component in its school population. The work that is being done there has resulted in national awards for the Garbutt State School for getting these young indigenous students up to speed and making sure that their literacy and numeracy standards are as good as they can be.Labor failed to improve educational standards. After 13 years, 30 per cent of school students failed to meet minimum acceptable literacy and numeracy standards. Labor chose not to address this vital issue. That is why I am pleased to support this bill. The revised structure combines the literacy and numeracy grants to schools programs and the special education schools support fixed and per capita grants into the strategic assistance for improving student outcomes program. This program is aimed at helping schools and school authorities to improve student learning outcomes for educationally disadvantaged students, particularly in literacy and numeracy, and at helping school authorities and government centres to improve the educational participation in outcomes for students with disabilities. The bill also combines the priority and community languages program into the language other than English program and simplifies administrative arrangements under this program. The funds made available will continue to be aimed at helping schools and their authorities, government educational institutions and other bodies to improve the teaching and learning of languages other than English. This bill recognises the rights of parents and children: for parents, the right to choose the type of education they want for their kids and, for children, the right to quality education through improved outcomes for all students. Labor goes on and on about creating a knowledge nation. The unions still dictate Labor's education policy or lack thereof. Even one of their own has said that they stuffed it up after 13 years. Labor could not get it right. It ignored the serious problems of numeracy and literacy, and vocational education and training.Opposition members interjecting—HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—Thank you for being a good audience. My time is about to expire. I appreciate the audience that I have attracted, and I strongly support the bill before the parliament this afternoon.17:09:0020133Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Education is at the heart of the knowledge nation. Every kid has the right to fulfil his or her potential. Every kid has the right to creativity, to be excited by well-motivated, knowledgable teachers and a good curriculum. Every student has the right to good opportunities for the completion of their schooling. We in this place have a duty to reverse the appalling completion rate for our school students which has developed in recent years. Fortunately, the election of state Labor governments around the country is beginning to turn that trend back to where it was before the advent of Liberal state governments and then a federal Liberal government in the early nineties and mid-nineties. But it is only their efforts which are turning this trend around, and their efforts alone are insufficient to bring us to the sorts of levels of completion rates that we will need if we are going to be able to be both a happy society and a competitive nation this century.These objectives can be achieved only through an education policy dedicated to the health of the whole system and not driven by blind ideology. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, has been exposed over and over again in his obsession to damage and diminish public education. It is hard to understand how a man in his position can hold the public system—that covering 70 per cent of our young people—in such low regard. What is it that has convinced him that education must be returned to the days when the only road to success was to choose wealthy parents? The only way you could justify his proposed changes would be to think that this country was so well served by its education system, churning out such a surfeit of excellent school leavers in all areas of major economic need, that we should limit the supply. Does anyone think that that description applies to Australia today? No, it is all a case of ideological obsession.As soon as he got the job in 1996, Dr Kemp set out to diminish the public system. We had evidence of it last year when we got a copy of his leaked submission to cabinet that would have resulted in $100,000 university fees, with the poor being forced into loans at market interest rates. We know that he has been motivated by blind ideology since at least 1991. We know this because we have another remarkable leaked document of a coalition meeting from June of that year. At that meeting Dr Kemp said:... 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.At that meeting it was agreed that Dr Kemp would report back on: non-government schools—whether additional expenditure could be offset by reductions in grants to government schools and in untied grants.So that was his strategy as far back as his opposition days, nearly a decade ago—to get Australian children out of the public sector and into private schools, and to find the extra money by taking it away from the public schools. He has sought to demonise the public schools, demonise the teachers in public schools and diminish their actual resources so that they would find it difficult to achieve the bars that he set them to jump, putting those resources into a select section of private schools. And this is just what he has done with his enrolment benchmark adjustment in which the states lose federal funding if the public school share of the state's enrolment numbers falls. This is a clever financial disincentive to state governments. It is a clever mechanism for diminishing state schools with a spurious argument that conjures some sort of notion of equity as you go through it. He even had the hide to stand up in this place in question time the other day and say this was not an education measure. What else was it supposed to be? It certainly featured as an education savings measure in the 1996 budget.The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill gets rid of the old 12 categories of funding for non-government schools. Instead, it introduces a so-called socioeconomic status for funding. Dr Kemp has had a lot of difficulty in explaining how this would work. It seems, from the evidence of officials in parliamentary committees, that the upshot would be that the top 62 category 1 schools in Australia will be the major beneficiaries. The ability of these schools to fund themselves, through their $10,000 fees, through graduand gifts, parental donations and the like, will no longer be taken into account. Their massive resource capabilities would no longer be taken into account. Instead, the addresses of parents would be examined to see whether they fall into wealthy or poor areas, as determined by a four-year-old limited census survey.Under this system, children of millionaires who nevertheless live in relatively poor areas, such as many rural regions of Australia, will be deemed to be needy and funding to the school would be increased. Elite private schools that admit some of `the underprivileged' on scholarships will be rewarded by extra funding. It is clearly designed to get as many kids as possible out of public schools and into private schools. But this is not Dr Kemp's only motive. This is because his new funding formula does not give to private schools equally.As many independent commentators have spotted in this legislation, the poor Catholic schools, by far the biggest group in the private school sector, are a loser in this system. We support the decision of the Catholic Education Commission to opt out of David Kemp's new system. The Catholic commission is trying to provide for the nation's 1,600 Catholic schools, some of which are among the poorest of non-government schools. We believe it is totally unfair that they should receive only an extra $157 for each Catholic school student, compared to an average $900 increase for each pupil in elite category 1 schools. The minister likes to claim he has the Catholics' support. The new funding formula has been politely received by the Catholic education authorities. They are always polite in dealing with Commonwealth governments when there is any increase at all in the resources being given to them. But make no mistake: they are alert to the dangers of the new so-called socioeconomic status—or SES—funding. As the Deputy Chair of the National Catholic Education Commission, Father Tom Doyle, said on August 22:We would still maintain that the SES model in itself was not sufficient and that it needs modification ... that is why we talk about SES plus things like resource indicators and resource availabilities.Precisely what I have been talking about. We have had it confirmed by high-level education officials that the top 62 schools in Australia will get $50 million extra to share, while the 1,600 Catholic schools receive only $100 million per annum extra. Top category 1 schools, like the ones most of the government frontbench went to, do very nicely, while those in the local Sacred Heart Convent, like the ones at least 40 per cent of my frontbench went to, hardly get enough for a couple of library books. It looks as if David Kemp has taken a spiritual point from St Matthew's Gospel literally as an issue in public policy: For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away, even that which he hath.The origins of David Kemp's position lie deep in history. His views are of a piece with the Liberal Party's opposition to state aid—a debate resolved by my father in the 1970s. The Liberals opposed needs based funding then, and today Dr Kemp has found a formula to try to get back to those days. I remember them well. I remember my father telling me that Malcolm Fraser leant across the dispatch box while he introduced his bills and said to him, `You will not get these bills. They will be defeated in the Senate.' What he was saying was that the poor schools of Australia would not get that funding. They got it after my father was hospitalised with a heart attack, when Lionel Bowen, who in many ways is a more worldly figure than my father, went around to the National Party and gave them a list of the Catholic schools in their electorates which he intended to visit to explain to them the consequences of the coalition's policies. And so it went through.We in the Labor Party, as evidenced by the fact that we are the authors, are not opposed to private schools receiving a decent share of federal funds. My father's reforms ensured that people who pay their taxes to see a proportion of their money go to the schools attended by their children get some just reward—it is only fair. But we do not support the inequalities in David Kemp's legislation, and we know they are against every wish of ordinary, decent Australians. We know that education is a fundamental concern of Australians and that it is getting more important in this society to get a good education. What we in the Labor Party believe, unlike our opponents, is that a good education is not just a private desire; it is a public investment for the public good. There is simply nothing more important for the future of this country than a good education system. We know, although our government cannot seem to grasp it, that we cannot afford to let our education system run down.The public system, which the majority of Australians will continue to attend, lies at the heart of our commitment to education. We need every child from every family to get the basic building blocks to allow them to take their place in the revolution going on in our workplaces. We are already 30,000 information technology workers short in this country. We desperately need more science and engineering graduates, as well as more and better teachers in `enabling sciences'. Does David Kemp think they are all going to come out of 62 elite schools? Whenever we raise public education as a national concern, he comes in and makes patronising comments about how the government has some technical education programs or traineeships for the poorer areas of Australia. Of course, many of these programs were begun by Labor in any case. We agree that these programs are essential and that this country needs well-educated, technical trainees. But we need much more than that. We cannot just sit back and hope that somehow we will muddle through, that our education system may, through luck, manage to produce enough high-technology, science-literate, innovative and adaptable workers for the knowledge economy.As our competitors around the world know, it takes planning, it takes investment and it takes something this government has never had—a commitment to equality of opportunity. The population of this nation is too small to go backwards to David Kemp's notion of the elite—those who deserve the best because they were born into the right families. We need to get the best out of everyone—the kids of struggling working families in the west of Sydney; children of farmers battling to break even in the bush; and sons and daughters of Australians who believe in the public system, who pay their taxes and who want their schools improved. The minister often comes into this House and takes refuge in what he perceives to be the failure of public school teachers, yet these people are the backbone of many communities in this nation. For modest pay, these teachers take on big classes, literacy and numeracy problems, sports and music needs, discipline issues and a rapidly changing curriculum. Besides those, these folk take on many of the essential organisational requirements—the sporting, social and voluntary activities—of the towns of regional Australia. I well remember when the Teachers Union in Western Australia organised a work-to-rule to pursue their case. The people who were first to complain about it were all the country football teams that lost their coaches and the local fire brigades that lost their workers. One after the other these teachers, so demonised by this minister, had their full public value drawn to the attention of the bulk of the Australian community in generally Liberal voting electorates.We all know there are problems. As the government's chief scientist reported recently, many teachers are being forced to teach subjects they are not trained in. It is impossible to excite growing kids into an interest in science and maths—the building blocks of the knowledge revolution—if you do not have any background in these subjects and you are two or three lessons ahead of them. All of the latest research suggests that the best way to improve education is not to change the state and private split, as Dr Kemp believes, but to improve the subject expertise of teachers and to attract high calibre graduates to teaching, with a particular but not exclusive emphasis on science, maths and information technology skills.We have already begun to address these problems. We have announced details of our teacher development contracts and our teacher excellence scholarships. We will work with communities in disadvantaged areas to introduce education priority zones to lift the quality of education in the areas that need it most. We will assist students, teachers and parents through new technology, with our Learning Gateway web site, giving instant access to a huge range of educational services and a thorough understanding to parents about where their children are going, the sort of curriculum that they are dealing with, where that curriculum will take them and the sorts of tests they will be obliged to confront. That is real community knowledge and community participation, and it will underpin those priority zones, which will be community based. Communities will determine their needs. That need may be for additionally qualified teachers, it may be for special literacy programs or it may be for mentoring programs into ultimate traineeships or onto university. There is a whole range of things—one size does not fit all—in our communities, and this will address them. We will double the number of educational research scholarships at universities, an idea recently taken up by the chief scientist. Beyond this, we will introduce a new category of fellowships to keep the best and brightest Australians here.Here is something that will be popular with almost everyone in the debate: we will abolish the hated enrolment benchmark adjustment. We will not penalise our public system because of an ideological fixation. Here is the central issue at stake: the minister has to explain to Australians, in a context of scarce public resources, how giving $50 million to category 1 private schools will be a more effective policy than improving opportunities for ordinary kids throughout this country. Until we get an answer to this, we will be seeking to adjourn debate on this legislation. It is an insult for this parliament to be asked to pass a $22 billion bill before the government provides detailed final figures on the bill's true financial effect. We are supposed to be the checkpoint of the accountability of legislation before us. If we cannot get a complete and clear picture of how this very confused model produces a particular outcome for individual schools, no-one can get it. We have an absolute right as the House of Representatives to demand that prior to passage of these bills. We are not alone in our criticisms. If the minister does not want to listen to us, there are others he might heed. Take, for example, Victorian Supreme Court Justice Frank Vincent, who is also Chancellor of Victoria University in Melbourne's western suburbs. Justice Vincent, who came from a battling family himself and went to a state school, said on 31 August:I am decidedly uncomfortable with any of the processes which are increasing the practical discrimination against the poor in this country, and I fear that might be happening at the present time with these new funding structures ... There were, for a period of time, avenues of opportunity for people such as myself, and I'm concerned that those avenues are being cut off dramatically as time progresses.It is an extraordinary statement from a man in a position to judge. We are going backwards in equity. There has been widespread community outcry about the unfairness of the minister's aims. The Melbourne Age, in a blistering editorial, said: The government's new socioeconomic status funding system for private schools, which will provide the massive windfall gains for the richest schools, will only entrench the disparities within our education system. It is not in the best interests of the nation to go down this path.The Australian, often a supporter of the government's market driven policies, was equally scathing: The reforms are tantamount to conceding defeat in the battle to improve the quality of education available to all. The Government has a duty to spend taxpayers' money where it does most good, for those who need it most. Dr Kemp's system leaves the elite the richer and education the poorer.This is a massive indictment. The commentators know it, the education industry knows it and students, teachers and parents know it. It is time for the government to wake up to itself. Under the Howard government, the policy—as in so many other areas—is for the rich to get richer, the poor to get poorer and the middle to be squeezed. Under the Howard education regime, it's back to the four Rs—Reading, 'Riting and 'Rithmetic for the Rich. That is the antithesis to Labor's approach, and that is why we want this debate adjourned—so we can have a proper discussion on the public investment issues associated with education.17:29:0020137Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—I rise to speak on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000. May I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his opening comments if for no other part of his speech. I certainly agree that we should be aspiring to be a knowledge nation and that every student deserves the opportunity for an education. I disagree strongly, though, that if education in the government sector falls down it is completely the fault of a federal government. I say this about Labor: when they get into state government, they know how to cut back funding. The increase in the federal budget for education is 4.2 per cent. The member for Lilley may well remember from his experience in assisting state governments that this year the increase in the Queensland state government budget for education is 0.8 per cent. Let me say those figures again: federal government increase, 4.2 per cent; Labor state government in Queensland increase, 0.8 per cent.It has always been the responsibility of a state government to look after government education, and it has always been the responsibility of the federal government, in the main, to look after non-government education. That is how you create the health of the whole system. It is not, as the Leader of the Opposition asserts, through attacking one section while you build up the other.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—There are no category 1 schools in Toowomba! WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—You do not strengthen the weak by weakening the strong, member for Batman. I can tell you that when Labor were in power they did everything they could to destroy the non-government sector of education in this nation. We are about building up both sides of education. We in the coalition believe in a choice in education. Whether the Premier of Queensland wants to send his son to Brisbane Grammar is not in the equation I am talking about tonight. The equation I am talking about tonight is the one that gives parents freedom of choice in which school their children are educated. One of my daughters is educated at a government school and the other is educated at a non-government school. Both those schools provide exceptional levels of education. I defy anyone to show me a better school than Toowoomba East State School, under the leadership of Alan Jarrott.We heard a tirade against the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs from the Leader of the Opposition that was completely unjustified. This government policy we are debating at the moment has never been driven by ideological obsession; it has been driven by a desire to bring equity, fairness and transparency to the education system. We want to ensure that schools are given ample opportunity to provide a standard of education that is fair and equitable. I noted the comments of the Leader of the Opposition about Catholic schools. Yes, they are happy. The reason they are happy is that they will get $8.15 billion out of this federal government, of the $13 billion that is allocated to non-government schools. Of course, all educators want more. Every school I go to wants more money. It does not matter whether it is a government or a non-government school. What we as a federal government are doing is addressing those needs.Last night during the adjournment debate I discussed some of the great programs that the federal government is involved in. I spoke about the $529,000 that we have just given to a government school at Fairview Heights in my electorate, the $70,000 that we have given to Sacred Heart School in Toowoomba and the $170,000 that we have given to the St Francis de Sales school in Clifton. What that tells me—and I know from looking in my diary that I am going to the Wilsonton School when parliament adjourns—is that we are continuing to fund on a fair and equitable basis, with a commitment to equal opportunity.We, like the Leader of the Opposition, want to see all schools improved. We want to see the standard we have at the moment improved. What I see in government schools in my electorate is already an exceptional standard of schooling. Attending the speech nights at the end of last year—perhaps something that many of us do not look forward to, a string of late nights in a row, but I can say that I get a great deal of satisfaction in going along and seeing the potential that these young people have and the great education they receive—my observations were that the government schools in my electorate are easily on a par with the non-government schools.That is not to say that there is not a shift in my electorate, as there is in Australia, towards non-government schools. That is part of offering the choice. I think that the Leader of the Opposition may echo his words when he says that governments have a responsibility to spend taxpayers' money where it does the most good. We are certainly doing that. We are doing it in such a way that those parents who make the decision to educate their children in non-government schools are actually saving the taxpayers money. For every child whose education is supported by the federal government and by Australia's taxpayers, for every dollar that we put in there, we save 50c, compared with what we spend on a student who studies in a government school. That is about delivering maximum bang for your buck. That is an issue that the Labor Party in this parliament do not understand. It is an issue that they had extraordinary difficulty in understanding when it came to health insurance. We make no bones about the fact that a government has a responsibility to ensure that the choice remains for parents and that, if parents make that choice—and many of the parents who make a choice to use non-government schools do so at great financial hardship—we as a government have a responsibility to support them. In supporting this bill to implement the government's commitment to maintaining stability in Commonwealth funding for primary and secondary education in Australia for the 2001-2004 quadrennium, I emphasise the federal government's commitment to giving parents the choice of whether their children are educated in a government or a non-government school. I am therefore happy to reiterate on the record, and I have probably done so already, that the federal government is committed to ensuring that choice and to ensuring that all Australian children receive the best education possible.A fair funding model is vital if we are to meet the challenge of continuing to achieve our commitment to delivering the best possible education for our nation's students. The answer to this challenge lies in the introduction of the SES system. The SES funding assessment arrangements are designed to more fairly, simply and transparently determine the funding needs of non-government schools, at no cost to government schools. Rather than using the schools' own resource levels, as measured by the current and clearly discredited ERI system—a system that unfairly froze funding to non-government schools for up to 15 years in some cases—SES assessment will consider the parents' capacity to pay.I know the Labor Party has difficulty in understanding this process, so I will say it again. SES funding is money which goes to schools according to the independently assessed needs of families whose children are enrolled there. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Labor Party is running around telling everyone that money is going to the wealthy schools. The Leader of the Opposition quoted in his address this mythical figure of 62 schools. The Labor Party is running around saying that all this money is going to the wealthy schools. This is wedge politics at its cheapest—at its cheapest. We hear the rhetoric coming from the Leader of the Opposition that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Is he so desperate now that he has to resort to dividing this nation? Isn't leadership, in the true sense of the word, about uniting the nation, about bringing the systems together? Isn't that what leadership is about? I must admit my disappointment at seeing the Leader of the Opposition stoop so low.It is unfortunate that Labor and some of those who supposedly represent the many tremendous Australian teachers have done so much to try to discredit what the federal government is doing. In that situation, I am proud and pleased that the coalition government remains totally committed to the stability of the education system, while the Labor Party continues to try to pull down the non-government sector. To illustrate the point, there was recently a letter to the editor in the Toowoomba Chronicle, in my electorate of Groom, which espoused this theory. Surprise, surprise—it came from the teachers' union in Queensland. It said that we, the government, are taking money from the government schools and putting it into the non-government schools—no facts, no figures; it just makes the statement and then turns and runs.I had to do some research to respond to that letter, and I was able to show quite clearly to the readers of the Toowoomba Chronicle, and hopefully to all at large, that in fact the federal government's funding commitment to government schools in Queensland has risen from $290 million per annum, when the coalition took office in 1996, to $385 million per annum now. Under this government, that figure is projected to reach $443 million in 2004. The federal government's $1.9 billion per annum commitment to state government schooling is rock solid and is part of our 4.2 per cent increase in education spending as outlined in our budget. I have had the pleasure in recent times of visiting a number of schools in my electorate. I picked up an imputation in the Leader of the Opposition's speech that the standard in government schools was declining, but I have not seen it. When I go to government schools, I see schools that are full of committed people. I see communities like the one at Fairview Heights, which I spoke of earlier, where the teachers are completely committed, and the standard is improving all the time. The outcomes that they are achieving there, with a combination of state and federal government funding, are outcomes we can all be proud of. I see a school in a new suburb taking on some of the teaching challenges that always present themselves in communities, and the use of mixed classes, where the older students assist the younger students as part of a process of helping those students who are having difficulty in learning, is something that I commend. As I said, I visit state schools regularly, and I have to say that I have seen no evidence at all of a slip in standards at government schools in my electorate. I guess that poses the question of why parents are moving from government schools to non-government schools. It is an issue of freedom of choice. After all, parents will always aspire to do what is best for their children, and that best does not always relate to the standard of education in terms of the three Rs. It can come from decisions relating to spiritual beliefs, discipline, whether or not they want their son or daughter to attend a same sex school, curriculum choice, parental involvement and even sporting opportunities. I do not in any way resile from the fact that the federal government will continue to assist government schools as we work to ensure that non-government schools are able to rebuild themselves from the catastrophe of funding that occurred under the previous Labor government. The suggestion that students in non-government schools come from rich parents is one which I despise intensely. In my electorate, where we have a number of poorer schools—all of which will benefit from this legislation—I am sure those parents will take equal offence at the comments from the Leader of the Opposition. It is interesting to look at the Bureau of Statistics figures which show that 21 per cent of school students in non-government schools come from families with an annual income of less than $26,000. It makes this statement about rich parents look pretty silly to me.The government remains unruffled by these constant attacks coming forward from the Labor Party. The bottom line remains that there is simply no evidence of a move away from our commitment to government schools. On the issue of the EBA, which Labor like to try to run with, it is interesting to read some detail about how the states are reacting to the EBA and it is interesting also to note that the Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training And Youth Affairs acknowledges that the EBA's real purpose is about preventing cost shifting. What we are really trying to do with the EBA is to ensure that the state governments do not start pocketing the money which we are giving to them for the education of students who have moved into non-government schools which we then fund through another stream. The sort of thing that we regularly see—overlooked, though, by the Labor Party—is that in that formula we do not take back the total amount of the EBA; in fact, we only take half. Of course, it is another area that, when pressed, the state governments will acknowledge.It is not just the federal government that wishes to see this legislation carried. Let me read from a letter that I received last week from the Australian Parents Council which says: 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. Commonwealth funding for non-government students and schools is linked to Average Government School Recurrent Cost (AGSRC). So it can be easily seen what proportion of public money as compared with the cost of government school education, is flowing to non-government school students. The proportion ranges from 13.7% to 70% of AGSRC. The letter finishes by saying that: The Bill guarantees security of Commonwealth funding for non-government schools—something Labor never offered—and students during the phasing in of the new funding mechanism. Commonwealth funding legislation for school education runs out at the end of this year.And we need to see that legislation passed.May I say that we really do need to see an end to the cheap politics being played out over children's education. This issue is far too important to allow the truth to be clouded by political gain. This issue is about ensuring that we have a fair, equitable and homogenous system which provides parents with choice—the choice of whether or not to send their children, who are far and away their biggest asset, to a government or non-government school. I reject absolutely the assertion that this government is cutting funding to government schools. I have seen no proof of it. I hear rhetoric, I hear partial quotes, I hear assertions, but I see no evidence. What I see is a federal government, as I said at the outset, committed to both government and non-government schools and to an education budget which continues to increase. It is very easy for the Leader of the Opposition to stand there and say: `We just need to spend more money on this and we just need to spend more money on that.' Of course, he has got form in that area. He spent a fair bit of money on everything when he was in charge of the purse strings—$12 billion, I think, was his best effort in terms of a budget deficit. He left us with an $80 billion deficit which we have had to deal with. Education funding is like all financial funding: it needs to be done concisely, transparently, fairly and sustainably. This bill does that, and I commend it to the House.17:49:0020141Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—The member for Groom seems to think that, if you state an untruth often enough and loud enough, it becomes the truth. If ever two questions focused attention on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000, they were the two questions asked last Thursday by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for education, the member for Dobell. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs the following question:Minister, is it correct that funding for government schools can change for three reasons: firstly, automatic indexation for school cost increases and enrolment growth according to a formula set down by Labor in 1993; secondly, discretionary decisions to increase funding; and, thirdly, discretionary decisions to cut funding. Minister, is it correct that a senior official of the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs told the Senate last week—that is the previous week—that the total of discretionary increases for government schools was $106.4 million over the next four years? Is it not also correct that your enrolment benchmark adjustment—which we will abolish—a discretionary cut, will take more than $150 million from government schools over the next four years? Minister, is it not true that the net effect of your policy decisions, as opposed to automatic increases, is to cut funding for government schools?The minister's answer, of course, evaded the question. He stated contemptuously that an enrolment benchmark adjustment is not a school funding policy. What remarkable duplicity! What duplicitous denial! Yet this policy takes more than $150 million from government schools over the next four years while increasing funding by $106.4 million. To anyone else that is a decrease in funding to government schools. I have not heard one person say anything different, except the minister and the government backbench. I have not heard one person from the independent schools or Catholic schools or low-fee Christian schools defending this appalling EBA policy. The minister is alone with his backbench and his government on this matter. He ought to be soundly condemned and pressured into resignation unless he withdraws the discriminatory policy of enrolment benchmark adjustment against government schools. The only concession to the Leader of the Opposition's question was that government school enrolments would increase by 2.3 per cent; but that will have to be achieved with considerably less funding. The second question was asked by the shadow education minister, the member for Dobell. His question was:Is the minister aware that a senior official of his department told the Senate inquiry into his new school funding formula that an extra $50 million to 62 category 1 schools was `probably a good estimate'? Is the minister also aware that his enrolment benchmark adjustment has already taken more than $60 million from government schools? Minister, how can you claim that your legislation is designed to restore equity and fairness to school funding, to use your words, when it takes $60 million from government schools and gives $50 million to the 62 wealthiest schools in Australia?The minister, predictably, denied that this was the case. The minister explained that a reduction of $60 million from government schools—that is, the EBA—is described as a federal-state financial transaction. If that is not a funding arrangement, then I do not know what is. If that is not doublespeak in the dodgy language of the minister, then I do not know what is. It is illuminating that the minister's comments regarding the question completely failed to acknowledge the loss of funding to government schools. Why would anyone be surprised about that? The coalition's Expenditure Review Committee minutes prove that David Kemp has been on a 10-year crusade to drive students out of government schools. The member for Groom admitted that. The coalition's ERC minutes for 1991 record very clearly the intentions of the government. They state:He—that is, Dr Kemp—noted that the coalition sought to encourage students to move from government to non-government schools.Why would anyone be surprised? In the same minutes it was agreed that Dr Kemp would report back to the ERC on the subject of `non-government schools—whether additional expenditure could be offset by reductions in grants to government schools and untied grants'. Since the Howard government took office in 1996, Dr Kemp has systematically implemented every one of those plans by establishing in the enrolment benchmark adjustment policy—which I have already explained has taken $60 million from government schools and will take $150 million over the next four years—by cutting untied grants to the states by more than $1.5 billion in 1996, and by now massively biasing Commonwealth funding in favour of wealthy private schools.The minister's claim of generosity, fairness and equity towards government schools is simply fraudulent. The increases to government schools are driven by an automatic indexation formula that has been in place since 1993. If Dr Kemp had given government schools any less, he would have had to pass a budget measure to cut their funding. Another point: why is this minister asking this House to pass this bill at this time—at a time, I remind all members, when the data collection about his funding model is not complete? In fact, this is unlikely to be completed until the end of September.The opposition have already discovered the bias towards category 1 schools at the expense of government schools. What else in the fine print of this legislation also stinks? Over a year ago the shadow minister for education, the member for Dobell, asked the minister for the modelling showing the way in which the new system will distribute government funding to private schools. The shadow minister, surprisingly, received nothing. That private schools get public funding is not argued. Labor have always said we support extra funding for needy non-government schools and that we would support the new system if it were fairer. But how could anyone come to a conclusion that it would be fairer if the following takes place: the average category 1 school gets an extra $800,000 a year, the average Catholic school gets an extra $60,000 a year and the average government school gets an extra $4,000 a year? That is 200 times less. Is this what the minister means by raising education to a new level of fairness and equity? It this what the minister means by transferring funding from government schools, which 70 per cent of Australian children attend, to schools which 53 per cent of the cabinet attended—exclusive category 1 schools which cater for a small minority of privileged students? The minister has delayed this legislation by more than 15 months. He has deliberately hidden the real figures, the real statistics, the real level of funding—that is, per capita levels—and the levels of expenditure on schools as a percentage of GDP, the only reliable measure. The minister has accused the opposition of lying. If he is to do so effectively, he needs to answer the following questions. Exactly how much additional funding will go to each of the 62 category 1 schools? When will the minister release the final figures showing the increase for each and every school in Australia to let us make a comparison? Why should category 1 schools get bigger increases than private or public schools with greater needs? How can this House be expected to vote on a $22 billion bill without knowing that information? As the shadow minister has indicated, the passage of this bill ought to be adjourned until that information is available.This minister has, until the last couple of days, argued the mantra of freedom of maximum choice. It does not mean that at all; it means according to the ability of people to pay. That is for whom freedom of choice is a viable option. As I said earlier, the minister has now introduced a new mantra. In fact it was last week when he had the gall to state that he intended to raise fairness and equity to a new level in Australia. And pigs might fly! This bill does nothing for disabled children. This bill does nothing for rural children. This bill does nothing for children in socioeconomically depressed areas. This is a great sadness because this government promised to govern for all Australians.This government's action in education is a threat to our Australian democracy founded on the secular state, founded on non-discriminatory universal access to education, founded on widely shared knowledge, values and justice for all, and funded on equal education opportunity. That is what is really threatened, and that is a threat to all of us. It is not just the Labor opposition and the AEU saying this; many academics have spoken out about the direction this government has taken and the risk involved in pitting one group of Australians against another, of creating winners and losers in education opportunities. I have mentioned previously in this House the concerns of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne, whose synod views with dismay the increasing polarisation between rich and poor in facilities and infrastructure provided within the government school system, exposing the more vulnerable sections of the community. They do not agree with the government's new schools policy either. Their report The state of our state schools, which was published in August 1998, states: In the interests of social cohesion it would be better that the proliferation of small, low-fee private schools (many with sectional interests) cease.The Anglican Diocese of Melbourne obviously do not give any credence to the minister's mantra on choice either. Let me quote them again: The present emphasis on choice should be dropped. Competition between schools increases inequalities and exacerbates social division.Areas of concern identified by the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne included the following: the decreased funding of government schools, the increased spending on non-government schools at the expense of government schools, and an education debate hampered by the difficulty in obtaining reliable information. That was not the Labor Party; that was not the AEU; that was not the government school sector. That was the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne—rightfully, responsibly, warning all Australians of the dangers inherent in current government policies in education. Thankfully, one responsible sector of Australian society, one not known for politicising issues, is not prepared to just look on while individualism replaces social concern and community development and the rules of the market prevail and undermine the development of community. I dare the minister and I dare any member on the government side to accuse the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne of lying as he does those of us in the Labor opposition. This government is taking Australian education down the very slippery slope of the single market that will certainly cause failure in both the public and the private system. Behind the government's rationale for this bill is the creation of a single market in education. On the worst interpretation, this government is deceitful and malevolent as far as education is concerned. On the best interpretation, it is simply incompetent and blissfully unaware of the dangers in which it places the future of Australian society.This government believes in blurring the distinction between public and private schools. According to Associate Professor Alan Reid of the University of South Australia, the government's central strategy is the establishment of an education quasi-market. That view is essentially shared by the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne. That is, the government seeks to create a single market in education where all schools, public or private, compete for custom. Some people respond to that proposition of a single market by saying, `So what? Won't competition in the education market make for greater efficiency?' To those people, I would say this: education is not a simply described product that can be crudely measured—it is not a tube of toothpaste, it is not a loaf of bread, it is not an automobile and it is not the latest fashion accessory. If the logic of the creation of the single market by this government were followed, all government schools would be abolished, as a dollar spent on a private school could be argued to be more cost-effective. That is the line that the member for Groom used. The language of the single market, as used by this government, whether it be the minister, the Prime Minister or the 53 per cent of the cabinet who attended category 1 schools, is just plain wrong. A single market assumes all schools operate under similar circumstances. They do not. Private schools select students; public schools cannot. Schools that cater for children with social or economic disadvantage, behavioural disadvantage, intellectual disadvantage or physical disadvantage will never be catered for in a single market. I repeat: never in a single market.The single market in education means the abandonment of these children. That very fact raises grave questions about the future integrity, cohesion and democracy of this nation. The marketisation of education values education only in financial terms. The intrinsic values of education—civics, responsibilities, justice—are simply ignored. This government does not appear to understand that encouraging competition between inadequately resourced schools will simply up the ante and result in increased alienation, resentment and anger. While markets obviously have an important role in our economic system, the rules of the market are simply insufficient for the government of a society.Education is supposedly being marketised to increase efficiency, management expertise and freedom of maximum choice. What is actually happening is the deliberate reduction in real education expenditure and the devolution of responsibility to the schools themselves to reduce the political fallout for the government of the day. That some narrow sighted professional people within education departments and public schools—affluent areas, of course—support marketisation and devolution certainly muddies the water, but it does not make it right. This government is intent on setting citizens and their children into competition with each other so that there are winners and there are losers. As the Age editorial of 24 August stated: Dr Kemp must move beyond the rhetoric about providing choice to students and their parents and comprehend his obligation to give all children an equal chance of fulfilling their potential. That, of course, is yet another example to make a mockery of the minister's claim that he is raising fairness and equity to a new level. I said earlier that at worst this government is malevolent about education and at best simply incompetent. Either way, the dangers to the future of democracy are real. A single market in education, I remind the House, is antidemocratic. To meet the needs of some in education at the expense of others is antidemocratic. To increase division, separation and stratification of society is antidemocratic. The weakening of national cohesion is a threat to our democracy. To support the private purposes of schools impairs the democratic purposes of schools. If private and economic purposes are allowed to be determinants of education, as this government allows, then proposals to extend democratic purpose cannot be achieved. I repeat: they cannot be achieved. However, if democracy is to be valued, everyone in this House must defend all to be included in education, and we must do so vigorously. This bill ought to have tackled a whole range of unsatisfactory issues—retention rates, gender imbalance, age profile of teachers, teacher training; locational disadvantage; socioeconomic disadvantage; the care of disabled children; early intervention; real literacy and numeracy skills backed up by social skills and technological skills; resource allocation according to need; differential funding rates; accountability of state governments in education; innovation and education; and reliable data with comparative longitudinal studies in education to remove the risk of so much guesswork in this country and bias in the future planning of education. But of course that would have meant integrity, fairness, equity, planning for the future, and preparing for change. Of course, that is anathema to this Prime Minister, this minister and this government.I support the call that this debate be adjourned until all relevant information pertinent to this debate is available. This afternoon I received an interesting letter from ACSSO, the Australian Council of State School Organisations. I quote from the last page: One of the supporters of Dr Kemp's policies, Alan Mitchell, Economics Editor of the Australian Financial Review, let us in on what Dr Kemp's “reform” really means. He described them as promoting: “means-tested vouchers”, government schools with the “more flexible management structures of the private sector”, “publicly-owned and financed, but ...self-governing”, and “the public system more like the (expanding) private system.” He raised the possibility of means-tested funding of government schools.Let us go to Victoria. The letter continues: Two other supporters of Coalition policies, Brian Caldwell (advisor to the Kennett Government) and Don Hayward (Kennett's first minister for Education), have estimated that if these market policies are followed, only around 30% of government schools will survive. What then happens to the guarantee of a free, high quality, secular education in a local government school?The letter continues, saying that this government is driven by:... ideological obsession with markets. The aim is to privatise provision, and to shift the costs of schooling onto parents. Around 70 % of Australian parents send their children to government schools, and public opinion polls show overwhelming public support for fully funded government schools. These policies are not supported by the Australian people—that is, the policies of this government—which is why the Coalition is trying to keep their real intent hidden.Secret agendas, secret documents and placing the future of this nation and our children at risk are not something to be recommended to even this government. I would hope that some people on the government side, when they join this debate, will at least have the honesty to acknowledge what the minister and this government are attempting to the great disadvantage of all of us in this country. (Time expired)18:09:0020145Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—Socioeconomic status is a key predictor of educational disadvantage, although there are of course interesting exceptions as shown by studies both here and overseas. Certain migrant groups from the lowest socioeconomic status groups, among which Asian families figure prominently, do not conform to such predictions. For example, a United States study found that 30 per cent of the children of Indochinese boat people scored better than 90 per cent of American students on mathematics and only slightly less well on language skills. Another fascinating United States study found an illuminating difference between attitudes to failure at school among Caucasian Americans, Chinese Americans and People's Republic of China nationals. The first group, the Caucasian Americans, attributed failure to bad luck or bad schooling. The second group, the Chinese Americans, attributed failure to lack of effort with some allowance for other variables, and the PRC Chinese overwhelmingly put failure down to lack of effort.In Australia, some ethnic groups have notably outperformed Australian born students and this is even in cases where the IQ of individuals is lower and the socioeconomic status is also lower. One such group of high performers are the children of first generation immigrants of Greek peasant background with either little or no education at all. In all such cases, it seems that the key is the attitude to education held by the parents. Parents in these groups want their children to get the education they never got and they instil in their children an ideal of the value of education and of how it can be used to make a better life. Obversely, a major study in the US, the Coleman report, found that although black youths registered highly on the measure `interest in learning', their inability to imagine that any efforts of theirs could be successful meant that there was a negative correlation between years in schooling and achievement. You need to be able to imagine success before you can achieve it. The same poor Afro-Americans ascribed success more to luck than to effort. So there is a lot more to education outcomes than socioeconomic status alone but, despite the exceptions I have outlined, it has to be said that, sadly, where one is born and where one goes to school does seem to correlate with how one fares in the education system. A recent survey by the Australian Council of Educational Research found that students from poorer areas and those with less well-educated parents are opting for more vocational subjects in year 12.This States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 represents a sea change in funding arrangements for the school system, particularly for the growing non-government sector. It introduces new funding arrangements in the form of the SES, or socioeconomic status system, for non-government schools for the period 2001 to 2004. It is important to emphasise that this model is based on an independent assessment of the socioeconomic status of the school community and a vigorous and far-reaching consultation process with schools. The bill replaces a complex and outdated assessment of school resources, the Education Resource Index, known as the ERI. One of the problems with the ERI was that schools serving the same community could be funded at different levels under the category levels. Another was to do with disincentive. Schools wanting to raise extra funds through school fetes and the like could have their Commonwealth funding reduced in consequence. Schools were also locked into a funding level which determined their school community even if there had been fundamental changes in the socioeconomic status of that community. The ERI, it was also universally agreed, was enormously complex. It was transparent enough when it was first introduced but over the years had built up various layers of opacity, mainly the result of political decisions that had more to do with the electoral process than with logic or rationality. When it first started, there were eight categories, then there were six and then there were 12. Each time the number changed, there were changes to the formula. At one time it measured only expenditure on recurrent resources. It later measured recurrent resources but with a check on expenditure on capital. Then it assessed only income, and after that it checked it against expenditure as well. So ERI has been described as akin to tax law in its increasing complexity over the years. Both the ERI and the new SES have this in common: they assume that Commonwealth funding should be on the basis of needs. This is the continued assumption in the new system of funding: that schools should be financed in accordance with their level of need. This needs to be stressed because otherwise we could be led astray by the overwrought rhetoric of the opposition in this chamber.The SES model which this bill introduces is the result of consultation with state and territory governments and with both the government and non-government school sectors. The terms of reference for the review of the ERI were circulated in the period from February through to April. After this there was a further round of consultations with the states and territories and, since the introduction of the bill, a national process of consultation across all jurisdictions across all states and territories and national peak bodies between July and August. The overwhelming response from schools to the review was that the ERI mechanism no longer accurately reflected need and did not allow schools to respond to the changing needs of their communities. This was particularly a problem for rural and regional communities throughout Australia. The strong point of the new SES system is that it allows funding along a continuum to reflect the capacity of a community to support a school.What is also a key to understanding the new system and the reason for its coming into being is the government's belief that all students are entitled to a base level of public funding, regardless of the school which they attend. This means that schools on the highest SES score will have their minimum entitlement set at 13.7 per cent of average government school recurrent costs. The maximum Commonwealth entitlement for the neediest schools and for special schools will be set at 70 per cent of average government school recurrent costs. Increased funding for schools will be phased in over four years and the government has given an undertaking that no school will be financially disadvantaged in moving to the new funding system.This bill has two important further provisions which are quite novel. The first of these is that schools will not be penalised for raising private income, in line with the government's belief that communities should not be discouraged from providing additional resources for their schools. The second change is that distance education students in non-government schools will become eligible for Commonwealth recurrent funding set at 13.7 per cent of the average government school recurrent costs. Distance education students in the government sector already benefit from this, and this measure gives parity to those in the non-government sector in similar circumstances.This government takes seriously its responsibility for dealing with the continuing scandal of illiteracy and innumeracy in our schools. At the end of 11 years of Labor negligence of performance assessment in the schools, up to 30 per cent of our children were finishing school unable to read or write with any proficiency. As a result of this bill, literacy and numeracy benchmarks agreed to by Commonwealth and state ministers will be incorporated into regulation. Other performance measures will also be incorporated as they are agreed to by education ministers. This emphasis on accountability and measurement of performance is part of the sea change which the Howard government has brought about in how government deals with schooling. The opposition have made a meal out of objecting to any increase in funding for wealthy non-government schools. The points they fail to mention or to take into account in this debate are that, where schools do have high resource levels, that is due to the investment of after tax dollars in fees from parents, donations and sponsorships. This government does not believe in penalties for private investment in education. In any case, communities that have a high capacity for generating funds will be shown up in the SES index and, as a result, will get less public funding for the schools to which they send their children. The opposition have been throwing about a lot of erroneous figures about how much will be going to the most wealthy schools under the new funding arrangements. No individual school among the wealthiest 62 will be funded at an average level, as the Labor Party keeps saying. Some will receive funding at a higher level only because of the guarantee that funding will be maintained where otherwise it might have been reduced. This is to say that such wealthy schools receive that funding only because they were maintained at that level by Labor.The Commonwealth government is increasing funding for government schools more rapidly than any state government in Australia. This is despite the fact that the states largely control funding for the government sector while the Commonwealth is responsible for the non-government sector. The Commonwealth will be spending $402 million more on government schools this year than in 1996, when the Labor Party legislated the amount of funding for government schools. This represents a 26 per cent increase by the Howard government for government schools over the past four years, yet the number of students in government schools has increased only by 2.3 per cent. Non-government organisations—Catholic and non-Catholic, independent and Christian schools—support this legislation. They see it as providing choice for working-class families.The Catholic Education Commission have chosen to stay outside the SES system for their own reasons. They employ the SES to distribute funds within their system. The Catholic sector supports the government's legislation and has been urging the opposition to support this bill. Father Tom Doyle, Deputy Chair of the National Catholic Education Commission and Chair of the Victorian Catholic Education Commission, told the Senate committee that he:... supports the [bill] ... and endorses the Commonwealth's application of the principle of need in making grants to Catholic systemically-funded schools.This bill is about introducing fairness, equity and social justice into our schools funding. On this side, these concepts are more than just airy nothings. The Labor Party, for all their sound and fury, are supporting this bill. I think that speaks for itself. I commend the legislation to the House.Sitting suspended from 6.23 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:0020148Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000. But in doing so I must make the point that a Senate committee is currently inquiring into this legislation. I think it is reasonable to ask why we are debating the bill prior to the findings of that committee being released. It is a legitimate question; the government has yet to answer it in a convincing way. I make that note in passing.This bill represents the formal legislation for Commonwealth funding for government and non-government schools for the period 2001-04. I understand it represents appropriation of around $18 billion or, in other words, $7.6 billion for government schools and $14 billion for non-government schools. Translated into percentage figures, 35 per cent of Commonwealth-only funding for schools is directed to government schools and 65 per cent is directed to non-government schools. The bill introduces a new method of per capita funding for non-government schools. This new method of funding for non-government schools means changing from the current education resources index, ERI, which assesses a school's total resource levels, to an index which measures the socioeconomic status, SES—occupation, education and income—of all of the parents who send their children to a particular school. The SES is based on the areas of data collection of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. While introducing this new funding formula, the government is also proposing to retain the enrolment benchmark adjustment policy, the EBA. I understand that the government conducted a simulation project in 1998 to test the theory of this new funding process. I believe that around 691 schools were involved. However, on the best available information, it seems that the simulation project threw up some interesting outcomes. At this point, I must say that not all of the details and not all of the figures are available from the government, and I must reflect upon my comments earlier in relation to the Senate committee inquiring into this legislation. It seems difficult and somewhat unacceptable for the House to be asked to consider such an incredibly important bill when a Senate inquiry is under way and when all of the figures have not yet been made available to people on this side of the House. One of the interesting outcomes of the simulation project was that three-quarters of the 691 schools involved were better off under the new system and would move to this new SES funding system. Another prediction is that the 63 wealthiest schools in Australia, presently category 1 schools, will receive some $46 million extra funding a year under this bill.By contrast, I understand that no extra recurrent funding, other than indexation and enrolment adjustments, is provided for government schools. Also, the EBA, the enrolment benchmark adjustment process, will continue to apply. We in the Labor Party have already announced our intention to abolish the unfair EBA and to put back into government schools funding essential for their future—funding which the Howard government is planning to remove from them. The EBA has removed about $60 million from government schools in the past three years, despite the fact that those same schools have enrolled more than 26,000 extra students.This debate is not class warfare, as the government would like everyone to believe purely on the basis of our objections; it is simply about fairness and equity. I personally do not object to it purely because some private schools seem to do well out of this funding mechanism; but I object, and I object strongly, when I see the funding formula take money from one sector and funnel that money into another sector. It is that inequity that I object to. It is simply not good enough, it is simply not acceptable, when we know that the 70 per cent of children who attend government schools will suffer as a consequence of this government's actions within this bill. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has the front to stand in this place time and again, metaphorically with his hand on his heart, and say that funding to government schools has increased under his stewardship. This is simply not the case. I do not believe that either sector—the government school system or the non-government school system—wants to have this debate. The Prime Minister and his minister for education are creating a division between them by applying this retrograde policy through this bill. We will abolish the EBA—that is an absolutely unequivocal statement—and we will invest in an honest and appropriate education system for all of our children. An area within education which needs special consideration in this debate is that of students with disabilities. This is a constantly growing problem and a perfect example of where government attention ought to be focused. I recall a Howard government promise back in 1996 that an extra $16 million or so would go towards special education. I am not quite sure whether that was a core or a non-core promise. It must have been non-core because it disappeared, along with many other similar undertakings, between then and now. I believe this bill provides a modest increase in funding in this area for non-government schools, but it does not increase at all the overall level of funding for these students in government schools. In fact, I understand that students with disabilities attending government schools will see per capita funding decrease from $126 to $102 per year. With more than 32,000 of these students, that adds up to around $750,000 a year—a very disturbing outcome in anyone's language. How can anyone call that fair or just? The question of students with disabilities has been in the media to a great degree in recent times, particularly with regard to some non-government schools which have been calling for increased funding to cover their obligations and their requirements when they have children with disabilities attending their schools. I would applaud their call, but I would also say that, in doing so, we must consider what is happening in the government sector as well. When you see a drop in the per capita funding for children with disabilities in government schools from $126 to $102 per year, you can only condemn any government which believes that that is a proper, appropriate, fair or just policy to apply to any student anywhere in this country. Any increase is good, but let us be honest about what is really required.Unsurprisingly, this bill has become very contentious and has drawn many varied views from many commentators. It would also be fair to say in a very general sense that the private school sector would be more pleased with the outcome of this bill than would the government school sector. I would like to go over the figures produced, I understand, by DETYA, the department concerned, which indicate the following. The average category 1 school will get an extra $800,000 a year. The average Catholic school will get an extra $60,000 a year—that is, 12 times less. The average government school will get a real increase of around $4,000 a year—200 times less. I support fully any extra funding for needy non-government schools. I also believe very strongly in a healthy, fair and just dual system. But to have that fair, healthy and just system, we must ensure that the system is funded in a fair, healthy and just way. Taking dollars from one and funnelling them into another is not fair, just or healthy.This country's future depends on a government investing in our education system in a proper way. Many of our trading partners are showing investment in education systems and their future that, frankly, put us to shame. Australia is the only country in the OECD where we see spending on education, training and research declining. And it is declining at a rate that no-one could applaud. This government and this minister are failing our children, are failing our future and are failing this country if they continue on this ideological bent. What we should be debating is forward thinking, progressive legislation with fair and just investment in the whole of our education system—legislation that offers hope and reward to every child participating in that education system throughout the country, regardless of their financial circumstances and regardless of where they live. Instead, we see this tawdry attempt at playing around the edges, shifting valuable resources in a crude political game and selling short our children and their educational potential.What this minister should do is, one, abolish the inequitable and unfair EBA; two, reduce those funding increases for the ERI category 1 schools and redirect that funding to special education in both government and non-government schools; and, three, provide increases in federal funding for government schools to match the significant increases for non-government schools. This is not about trying to drive a wedge between particular sectors of this community. It is not about saying that, if you live in one area and you happen to have the right socio-economic reading from that area, you will get more or less, regardless entirely of what may be required in that area. What it is about is a government and a minister being honest, dropping the ideological cloak that at the moment is encompassing them and saying that the calls for a proper and fair approach to education in this country are correct. The figures show the decline in investment. The figures show that some areas are far better off than others. Frankly, the policies that we announced through our national conference recently, with both the priority zones for schools that need the help and the abolition of the EBA, were the first two most important steps that we could see. Rather than the government scoffing at these things, what they need to do is to re-examine very carefully where they actually sit on these issues and to make sure that, at the end of the day, they are going to be able to face up to the outcome of their decisions. The outcome of their decisions will be read by this community at large and will be measured and judged in exactly the same way as this government is approaching them.In conclusion, I oppose entirely the whole thrust of this government in relation to their education funding policy. I am appalled by the fact that they wish to drive such wedges through our community. We are going back in a debate that was finished many years ago. I would encourage them to consider very carefully the judgment of their actions in the future because, frankly, I do not know very many people out there at all in the general community who are going to applaud the outcome of this bill as it stands.20:13:0020150McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—In March 1997 the Commonwealth, state and territory education ministers agreed to a national literacy goal, and that was that every child leaving primary school should be numerate and should be able to read, write and spell at an appropriate level. I draw the attention of the House to that as fundamentally a state problem. Both sides of the House would agree with that laudable objective that Australia's young children should have these skills when they leave the primary school level. The Commonwealth agreed at that conference to provide grants for fostering literacy and numeracy development, targeting the educationally disadvantaged students, and grants for national literacy and numeracy strategies and projects. So this government are committed to ensuring that Australia's young people in this modern age have the capacity and the ability to read and write at an advanced level for a western nation.I am concerned that the debate in this parliament has been divided quite strongly on this States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 and, fundamentally, on the funding of independent schools. The real argument is the matter of Australian parents and their children having a choice about whether they wish to attend an independent school and pay the necessary funding or, on the other hand, wish to attend a government funded school with no payment from the parents involved. In my assessment, that is a fundamental right of Australian parents. I think those sitting opposite agree with the fundamental position that, no matter what state or territory Australian parents come from, they are entitled to make the choice of school that they wish for their children. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that this government has provided an alternative choice of private health care. Again, those opposite got involved in a major argument about the ability of private health funds to provide this choice and the cost to Australian taxpayers. We see a situation in both health and education in this society where people have a choice and where the system is not dominated by government agencies. That is very much in the ethos of the Australian tradition: we have a choice, we make those decisions and on some occasions we make a contribution to that choice.In my home state of Victoria, 31 per cent or thereabouts of students attend independent schools. So parents of almost one-third of students have made the choice and are prepared to pay the money so that their children might attend an independent school which is funded partly by the federal and state taxation system and also partly funded by the after-tax dollars of the parents. The parents have a choice of curriculum and of the quality of that curriculum; the quality of the teachers; the class size, either small or great depending on the economics of the school; the discipline which the school may apply, either good, fair or not so good; the ethos of the school, which can vary from institution to institution, as most of you would be aware; the academic standards that the school will apply to their students and staff; and the performance outcomes of those students. That is very important, and the independent schools and, to a degree, the state schools are in a competitive situation to ensure that their students are beating those quality outcome standards. Of course, a number of independent schools have a religious background. It is fundamental in Australia that independent religious organisations have the capacity to create a school of their choice. I would like to draw to the attention of the House in a calm and equitable manner—unlike some members opposite who have been a little bit excitable about this debate—what the shadow minister and others opposite have had to say about this debate. I agree with the shadow minister, the member for Dobell, when he says: Improving educational opportunities for every student at every school must be our goal.That is the goal of those of us on this side of the parliament. In another part of his speech yesterday, he went on to say: 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.We have no argument with that. We support the general philosophy. The shadow minister then talks about the situation in the United States where training of the teachers has shown a big improvement in recent times. I was fortunate enough to be in the United States in recent weeks. It was quite clear from the Governor of Florida, the brother of the candidate for the presidential elections, Jeb Bush, that training of teachers and their activities in schools in Florida were under considerable review. If a school did not get the desired outcome in year 1, they got more funding, in year 2 they got more funding if the schools were not up to standard; but in year 3 the parents of children at those schools have the right to take their children away. Even in America the standard of teachers is being looked at very carefully. I note that the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister states:... the distribution of funding among the non-government schools is profoundly unfair.I refute that statement quite categorically, as I will go on to demonstrate. The member for Rankin made a sensible contribution and had this to say: 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 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.But he agrees with the basic concept and he has it on the record. At least he is applying it intelligently. I listened carefully to the contribution by the Leader of the Opposition. Again, that was a considered position. He has a long history in the education debate. Of course, his father introduced state aid during the time of the Whitlam government in 1973. I note that he is not opposed to funding going to independent schools. He has put on the record that he is not opposed to the funding.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Do you believe it?VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—It is interesting whether or not we believe it, but he said in a carefully prepared statement to this House that funding to independent schools should be on a needs basis. That is where we have a little bit of a problem in how we apply the original state aid argument which Kim Beazley Sr introduced in that historic legislation in 1973. The really fundamental question facing this parliament and this nation is how we apply taxpayers' dollars to the independent school sector, whether it should be needs based or on the parental capacity to pay. This government and the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs have brought about a fundamental change, with which some members on the other side of the parliament agree, that we need to look at the capacity of parents to make a payment in the independent school sector rather than establishing that schools have a certain amount of wealth—and I say the word `wealth' advisedly. A number of members opposite have made great play about certain independent schools being wealthy, but they have not acknowledged that a number of the parents paying the fees to these so-called wealthy schools are of middle income means, who pay their taxes and who make great sacrifices to send their children to a so-called wealthy school. I concede the point that some of the schools in category 1 do have facilities that have been built up over decades by parental support and by the hard work of previous generations, but the real difficulty in applying funding to independent schools is how to identify which of the categories a school should be in. As all speakers in this debate would be aware, the categories range from category 1, regarded to be the wealthier schools, to category 12, regarded to be the schools with poor facilities and low parental income. Although it has been conceded on both sides of the debate that those two categories are self-evident, there are some anomalies in those areas. I draw to the attention of the House the great difficulty the administrators have in identifying which category certain schools might fit into—whether they should be in category 3, category 7 or category 8. The differences between those categories are brought about by some strange arithmetic calculations and historical data, which I think the administrators of the departments have great difficulty understanding themselves.It is interesting to compare schools in my own electorate in the Geelong region. A school in category 10 has fees ranging from $1,600 to $1,800. In a category 1 school, the fees range from $6,000 to $10,000. The difference between the category 10 schools and the middle category schools—those between category 3 and category 6—is $3,500 to $7,500 depending on the category the administrators put those schools into. I have had considerable representations from schools in my area that this system is unfair and that arbitrary judgments by administrators, putting schools into particular categories, do not deliver reasonable outcomes for those parents. Those parents pay their taxes and they pay the school fees with after-tax income, yet by an arbitrary movement by the department here in Canberra, based on historical data, schools can end up in a category that I think all fair-minded people would question. So the minister and the government have come up with a new system and funding formula which we on this side of the parliament advocate is fairer to the parents. I think even the Leader of the Opposition would concede that the category system has some flaws. The opposition were unable to provide an alternative system when they were in government. It is interesting to observe that, in the Australian system, parents provide about 45 per cent of the total funding for non-government schools. In rough terms, parents provide about half the funding to their private schools, the Commonwealth provides about 37 per cent and the states provide 18 per cent. In very round terms, the parents provide half the funding and the Commonwealth and the state, out of taxpayers' money, provide the rest.In providing a new regime for independent schools, the coalition abolished Labor's new schools policy, a policy which fundamentally stopped the establishment of any new non-government schools. That allowed a genuinely competitive situation and gave choice to parents in rural, regional and urban Australia. If you talk to independent schools, they are bemused by the complex ERI—the education resources index—process and have difficulty understanding it. In many ways it is inequitable because schools serving the same community, as is the case in the Corangamite electorate, can be funded quite differently. Those figures I quoted a moment ago demonstrate that point. The ERI is inflexible because the schools tend to be locked into a funding category, and they are unable to move up or down depending on changes in circumstances. The other key feature is that independent schools that make an effort to raise funds in a capital sense are discouraged because of their category. The proposition the government is putting forward, after considerable research, is the SES—the socioeconomic status of the school community. This transparent methodology was developed by Melbourne University, the data being available from the reliable census figures. The SES methodology is fair and is related to parents' capacity to pay. The SES methodology is flexible, so schools can move according to their background parental capacities. The SES methodology removes the disincentives to private investment and provides the private sector with the choice to raise more money to improve the possibilities of that school both in an educational and a capital sense. Surely in the interests of the whole of Australia that is a step in the right direction. The SES is a simple process.For the interest of members—the process has not been debated in the parliament—the students' addresses, not the names of the students, are taken from the ABS collection and an index developed. Fundamentally, if the SES score is over 130, the school will receive the base entitlement they are now receiving. All schools with an SES score of 85 or below will receive maximum funding and those schools in between will get an ongoing entitlement, depending on where they sit in the program. The funding is based on the average government school recurrent costs. It is based on the government school arrangements where that is a genuine costing. Those opposite cannot really complain too much about that.In the remaining minutes, I mention that it was interesting to receive two letters from proponents of, and those against, the arguments. The Australian Parents Council has written a letter to all members. I think they understand the argument that this bill recognises that every child is entitled to a base level of public funding. They say in the second dot point in their letter that the bill is based on `a more transparent measure of educational need', rather than on the old one to 12 situation. They say that funding relates to `Average Government School Recurrent Cost', something that I have mentioned, and that `this proportion ranges from 13.7 percent to 70 per cent of the government cost'—again, a fair and equitable system that everyone can understand. They further say that this bill `guarantees security of Commonwealth funding for non-government schools' in the new funding arrangements.We also have a letter from the Australian Education Union. In all fairness, I looked at it very carefully to see whether it proposes a sensible argument against the proposition that the government has put forward. After viewing the letter, I really cannot see a sensible argument. They say `simply don't blame state governments' for any difficulties in the education system. Fundamentally, the state governments run the primary and secondary education system and we give some assistance to them by way of grants, but we assist the independent sector. So I do not think that the Australian Education Union really has a good argument.I will just summarise the position as I see it in this very seminal and important debate on education in Australia: the new funding model is about parents, students and educational choice—matters I have raised before. It is not about government school versus non-government school, which so many members opposite have put in their arguments time after time. Every child in Australia is entitled to support from the government for their education, whether for a total amount or a smaller amount to independent schools. The new funding for non-government schools will not lead to a reduction in government school funding. The minister and the government have made it quite clear that they will increase the total amount of federal funding for schools in their area of responsibility. The new funding model uses objective data about the needs of school communities to redress the past inequities and to fund schools in similar circumstances in similar ways. That summarises the position quite simply. Parents who invest their after tax savings in their children's education contribute to the national investment in education, and that is a desirable outcome. Parents using non-government schools in Victoria save Victorian taxpayers $650 million. That is a desirable outcome from the Victorian taxpayers' point of view. For every dollar of taxpayers' funds that state and federal governments spend on government schools, only 25 per cent is spent on non-government schools. That is a very important fundamental statistic that those opposite have tended to complicate and argue against. I strongly advocate the new system as being fair and reasonable. I hope those opposite will support the bill in the Senate, that the Democrats will support the bill and that there will be a new era of fairness and equity in independent schools funding. (Time expired)20:33:0020154Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I rise to make a contribution to this debate on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000. The Labor Party has a special interest in education. We see it as our future. The government sees education only in terms of another avenue to advantage their friends or advance the privatisation agenda. The Labor Party believes in equal opportunity. We do not believe privilege should decide whether you get a good education. We do not believe you should be able to buy education. What the government means by choice is not what everybody else means by choice. It is restricted to those with the ability to pay. I am concerned, representing an electorate that overwhelmingly uses the public school system, with the statement of intent by the minister that he is actively wanting a shift from the public school system to the private school system. That was recorded in the coalition ERC minutes of 1991. I will read from those minutes where it says:It was agreed that Dr Kemp would report back to the committee on non-government schools whether additional expenditure could be offset by reductions in grants to government schools and in untied grants.Well, he has. And this is what we have today: the complete opposite of what the minister stated publicly on Meet the Press. It was raised by the shadow minister during question time last week. The minister's response was:Get real.The House will recall that he was invited by the Speaker to more adequately respond. He said that he had not completed his answer and again said:Get real.That was the extent of it. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs is telling the shadow minister for education that it is okay to say one thing in private and another in public. He did that in relation to universities when he said that the government had `no plans to charge commercial rates on university education'. What did he do? He put forward a nasty proposal to limit university education to paying students, paying $100,000. This is what the minister means when he says `get real'. We are real. We do not need to `get' it in that 1960s sense of the word. Where the minister is unreal is in expecting the public education system to provide a decent standard of education when it is being white-anted by incentives provided by the government for parents to exercise their so-called choice and send their children to privately run, fee charging schools. It is unreal to expect every family to be able to do that. That is the first point. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Where did you send your kids?83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN—I can see that I am upsetting the parliamentary secretary at the table. My children actually went to public schools. It is unreal for the public schools to be expected to deliver a reasonable standard of teaching when their school populations are reduced to those who have been kicked out of the private school sector and those from less well-off circumstances whose parents do not have any choice. That is the second point. It is unreal to believe that the EBA has any effect other than to reduce the capacity of the public school system to provide any sort of quality in education. They are turning into adolescent-minding centres so that the youth allowance can be paid to teenagers who really do not want to be there. They are being forced to time-serve with inadequately resourced teachers who do not have the time to help these young people to plan their vocational avenues, to sort them out and to guide them away from wasting their lives after they leave school. These students have to attend classes as if they have every intention of completing the higher school certificate. It leads to problems for other students who do have every intention of doing as well as they can at those difficult final exams. It takes teaching away from teachers. That is the most important point. This government is intent on making government schools fail. Exclusive schools are just that. They can exclude those students they do not want. They can dump the ones they do not want back into the public schools, and that includes the underachievers and those with limited literacy skills. Public education is certainly a challenge. We have got laws that compel parents to send their kids to school. We talk about universal education and the minister talks about quality education, yet Commonwealth funding for government schools through the EBA has cut $60 million out of that system over the last three years. Principals and staff put their hearts into building a school, then another school opens up nearby. If it is a category 11 school, the public school may lose students. When the Commonwealth is actively bankrolling privately run schools in competition with public schools, planning for educational needs in the public system becomes very difficult. The minister sees this as market forces at work, offering choice to consumers. In fact, it is creating a chaotic situation where the outcomes are not predictable and the disadvantage is all on the public school side. School councils are writing to me saying they are concerned about the decline in public education while private education appears to be advancing. They look to the resources they have and they compare them with the new buildings springing up as non-government and privately run schools, thanks to the Commonwealth government. What they are observing are the effects of the government's redirection of funding from government schools to a competitive, private model in the guise of choice. The government is privatising education by putting the crunch on public education. It is transferring the cost as quickly as possible with this legislation. Dr Kemp calls it reforming the government school system, but it is wrecking the government school system, and it will mean lower income families and disadvantaged families will be left to spiral downwards. Their kids will be in an educational desert, and the more disadvantaged the family, the greater the desert.It happened in New Zealand in the name of choice, but it is really unregulated competition. We have the same before us. Disadvantaged kids were the losers there and the educational outcomes produced greater inequality. Maori communities were the hardest hit. If we adopt this sort of public squalor/private wealth muddle here, we are not going to break the cycle of generational disadvantage; we are going to entrench it. The SES model is an attempt by this government to look after its landed constituency. We in the Labor Party believe in a needs based system. If you are on the land and you have a modest income, fine. If you are on the land with a good income but you are surrounded by people of modest income, this SES arrangement determines that you are poor. The government admits that this is so in the arrangements it has to make for remote Aboriginal settlements which are situated, say, near a major mining town. If you have the means, says the government, we will not stand in the way of a substantial donation to the school. This is very interesting. Richard Pratt's $1 million cheque last year to the minister's old school, Scotch College, should not affect how much the taxpayers put into Scotch College. It is only the school showing a bit of enterprise. The public schools should learn from places like Scotch College and their adulterous but generous benefactors. The old system, the ERI arrangement, stood in the way of those sorts of donations. Non-government and private schools were, under the estimate, discouraged from getting out and doing a bit of good, old-fashioned fundraising. The government wants to get rid of the disincentives to private investment in education. Private and corporate sponsorship are uncapped. They want to transfer the cost of education away from the public sector and give non-government schools unlimited exercise over their expenditure—with almost double the Commonwealth assistance to the wealthiest private schools to help them along.Social security payments are subject to an assets and income test—a means test. If you have the means, you do not qualify for government assistance. That is what the ERI measured: the means of those schools outside the government system seeking government assistance, and some of them sure had means. They had money and the full range of professional services—accountants and lawyers—to help them with their books. The best a poor public school P&C can come up with is willing hands and wonderful heart.Knox Grammar can expect maybe an extra $1.3 million a year out of this legislation. Why is that? Why will the 62 top schools in the country get an additional $50 million a year out of this legislation? Why are taxpayers in my electorate being told they will have to pay for rich kids at elite schools with funds taken from their own basic and often deteriorating schools? And those elite schools will be free to increase their fees without any impact on the level of government support they get. The status of a private school is too frequently measured by the fees. This legislation will entrench fees over performance, facilities over excellence, class over equality, and new money over old money: the rich and tasteless. Dr Kemp has a strange and pessimistic vision of the future. He wants to entrench and fortify privilege. Kim Beazley, on the other hand, sees the future as an exciting time, rich with opportunities; but only if we invest in education now, for everyone. Times have been changing over the past 20 or 30 years. Migrants are most likely to be the Australian citizens with a greater commitment to their obligations and responsibilities than those still looking to the Queen. Those who came to settle here have had kids, and some of those kids who were born here have had kids. Life has moved along. The more recent arrivals, particularly among those from South-East Asia, actually value education. Their children quite freely acknowledge that they are working hard at their studies because their parents put so much into their future. It is not true of everyone, but it is true enough when parents have had to flee death and danger. Migrants do it tough here. They have to deal with the language barrier; they work hard to scrape the dough together and they live at the low cost end—all to give their children the full benefits of the opportunities they see. A lot of the children are bright, but the families do not have the resources to have them in private education. Whatever the so-called encouragement is, they simply do not have the money. They are people who have had a huge set-back. It is called `war'. Many had their studies interrupted before coming to Australia where they then had to take any job they could, learn the language, drive taxis, work night shifts, resume studies in English while dog-tired from work and, because time has moved on, start a family. Australia used to harbour prejudices against Europeans because they worked hard. Con the fruit man would have his kids working for him too, and the milk bar would be open seven days a week. I am pleased to report the work ethic is alive and well in my electorate of Fowler. I wish 1 could say the same about access to migrant English classes. In the last budget, $20 million was pulled from the Advanced English for Migrants Program. Why do we want to have immigration if it is only to condemn immigrants to be the working poor because they lack English skills? We are overlooking people with talent and skills—people who can contribute to their adopted country. They are resources we cannot ignore. They are mothers and fathers of children who will make us the knowledge nation. We can all share in a bright and prosperous future.I can see the potential every time one of my local schools comes to visit Canberra, which is less than a few hours bus time away. The electorate has people of many different backgrounds and the kids reflect that. I have not come across a teacher who has not said something very positive about their students. Research shows a strong relationship between school disadvantage and educational assessment. Fowler, in Sydney's south-west, does not score too well in the wealth stakes overall, but the teachers there think the kids are terrific because they are keen to learn—maybe it is to do with mum's and dad's attitude; it certainly is not to do with socioeconomic disadvantage. My electorate had three students awarded the Australian Students Prize last year for achieving higher school certificate results—a wonderful effort—in the top 500 nationally. Their parents came from Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.Education should not be about redistributing resources to the top end of society. Education should be where equal opportunity means something, not just for the students or their prospective incomes. Oh no, we need brains to seize the opportunities Kim Beazley sees ahead. And, in the most Aussie way, we should not care whether the student is the child of a shop owner living above a shop in downtown Cabramatta and attending Canley Heights High School or is a student at Abbotsleigh. We will take both of them. They are our future, so long as they do not go offshore because of the lousy level of research grants and postgraduate openings this government is offering.There were scientists demonstrating outside Parliament House last week. They were not your average workers. These were brain workers. Dr Kemp should have gone out there and talked to them. If we are going to get the brightest people looking after our country's future, we need to focus on where they live. We need to lift those areas where they are starting from behind. We need priority education zones where bright kids get a chance to do something for the nation, instead of ending up unhappy, with an incomplete education and a job that does not exploit their full potential. It is a wicked waste that directly threatens our and their future and guarantees a return to the class system, the social unrest it promotes and the cost it takes to maintain it.These are good reasons to resist this new formula. They are reasons of self-interest. I would have thought the government would be comfortable with self-interest as a philosophy, but this legislation takes self-interest in its narrowest meaning. Only the few, under this legislation, will be able to get their hands in the till, and they will not be grateful. To them, it is only okay to get a government handout if it is by devious accounting or avoidance of one's financial commitments to the revenue. To them, people who get the dole are a lower form of life. But there is no difference: tax avoidance is the same as dole fraud, except tax avoidance is the easier of the two. They are both rorts, and so is this legislation. The wealthy schools have welcomed the SES approach. The wealthy schools have seen the simulation figures. They have had them for the past two years and are in a good position to make the judgement that the SES makes the sound of money sweeter. The department knows the figures. The minister knows the figures. The parliament does not know the figures. We are told we will see something some time this month, and here we are debating legislation in this House without knowing the full impact of the changes. No wonder this legislation has been mysteriously held up, delayed and concealed. It has been done without consultation with the New South Wales Department of Education and Training—which is a stakeholder, a very major stakeholder, because the department complements the funding provided by the Commonwealth to non-government schools and provides the public transport and other infrastructure for students whose parents are exercising choice in where they send their student son or daughter. In the suburbs around Liverpool there is a great range of incomes. There are quite large houses in the estates often right beside extensive housing department developments. Getting a profile of one's family lifestyle by using census data for a collection district is an appalling misuse of statistical information. It is certainly not one I would use in campaign planning. The ABS warn against the sorts of assumptions you can make from the survey areas they can prepare for you, and most of that work is for commercial purposes—businesses looking at their markets.There were a number of models considered in the schools funding consultation report. The SES model was just one of them. We on this side supported needs based funding, but the SES method looks like having some rough edges to it that the government does not want us to look at too closely. The enthusiasm of the wealthier schools leaves one to wonder if we are going to be spending this $22 billion of taxpayers' money wisely. As I said at the beginning, the Labor Party has a special commitment to education because the nature of work is changing. The government has not understood that, unless we set the goal of being a knowledge nation, we will be trashed by those economies that have embraced it. (Time expired)20:53:0020158Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Education is the key to success both within Australia and on the world stage. It is the key that unlocks the door to knowledge, success, choice and a bright future. If as a nation we do not make a commitment to education and a commitment to quality education for all Australians—not just the few Australians that can afford to attend the exclusive private schools, the 62 category 1 schools many ministers and members of the government attended—then we as a nation are in real trouble. Education is something that is for everyone. Education is something that is a priority for a nation such as Australia.In Shortland, the electorate that I represent—in actual fact, in the whole of Newcastle—there is not one category 1 school. So how is this increase in funding of nearly $50 million to 62 schools relevant to the people that live in the Newcastle area? It is not very relevant at all. It shows just where this government's priorities stand. This 1950s style government is led by a Prime Minister that sits in his Chesterfield chair, dreaming of the past and seeking to take Australia back to that era—an era where if your mother and father had an education, then you could aspire to a university education. But if your mother and father were ordinary blue-collar workers, working hard just to survive, then you were expected to follow them. The idea was that you had your place in life and that is where you stayed. If you were very lucky, then you could aspire to attend a technical college and maybe end up with a trade. But you must never, ever try to move out of your station in life. This is the vision that our Prime Minister, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and the members on the other side of this House have for Australia. This government has a distorted, outdated view of the world and the type of society we should live in. It is a view that is built on privilege and a belief that there should be a privileged class. The people that should form that privileged class are the government, the friends of the government and all the `right type' of people—those with money, those that have money now, those with education, those that have education now, those that have property, those that own great wealth and those in big business—and friends like Kerry Packer who gambles more money in one night than most people see in a lifetime. This government supports and believes in a culture of privilege and elitism, and nowhere is this more visible than in education where this government demonstrates its philosophy. Nothing can be a greater determinant of wealth and opportunity in life than education. What this government is seeking to do through this SES model is to ensure that only those from a privileged background are able to obtain that education. Study after study has shown that a person's educational level determines their income level, which in turn determines their life opportunities and all the choices they have in life.This government wants to keep that education in the hands of a very few people, those people that can afford to go to wealthy schools. This government has attacked the public education system in every way and has actually made an art of being able to attack public education. It sees the system as something to be applauded and pursued with a passion. That is the way the ideologues on the other side of the House see it. You only enter the public education system if you cannot afford anything better. It is not a real choice. We really should not do too much to support people who go to private schools. Since the Howard government was elected in 1996, it has embarked on a 10-year campaign of undermining public education. There have been massive cuts to universities—$1 billion out of our universities. Research and development money to universities has gone. There are plans to charge $100,000 to do a degree. What ordinary Australian children coming from ordinary working-class families can afford to pay $100,000 for a degree? I certainly could not have afforded to do that. I could not have afforded to pay that for my children to go to university. What this does is really put university education in the hands of an elite few. There is talk about bringing in vouchers for education. The government wants to replace HECS with real interest rate loans. This is a disgrace. The government has slashed funds to TAFE; it has devised a plan to privatise education in Australia. We know this is a government that believes in selling everything off. It has sold Telstra. It is pushing Australia down the privatisation road all the time. But surely you have to draw the line somewhere. Surely education is something that it is the role of government to provide. This government sees it as something that it brokers out to its friends in the private sector. Those that can afford it will get the quality education.The Commonwealth funding is now being massively biased in favour of the wealthy schools—the schools that the members of this House who sit on the other side of this chamber went to. A majority of them went there. I find myself asking why any government would be so stupid as to jeopardise our future. I can only come up with one answer. That is that they are zealots. And the two head zealots are the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and the Prime Minister, who are driven by an ideological obsession with the market. This government has pursued the privatisation of Australia's education system with zeal, and it is leading Australian society down the road to a future of lost opportunity and division, a society of haves and have-nots, where there are people living in absolute luxury, people that can have anything they want, whilst on the other hand there are people living from day to day, people that are having to approach charities for handouts, people that work hard and just cannot survive. This is a very sad picture in a country like Australia. What this government is doing is entrenching the trends of the past where the children of professional parents were twice as likely as children of unskilled parents to go to university or even complete year 12. This is what it believes our society should be like—that it should be not your ability that determines what level of education you get but rather the family finances. I find myself looking at a number of decisions that are taken, particularly in education, and I feel as though it is a revival of the old feudal system. When I was at university, I looked at the natural order of things. It was put that there is God in the centre, then the nobles. I think that members on the other side of this House see themselves as the nobles. Then there is the middle class, who can aspire and have some money. Finally, you have got the workers. And the workers stay there; they must never look to change their position in life. I think the government sees us as ants and bees where you have the workers and the drones, and that is where they always stay. The queen is at the top. The government's vision of society is not of a modern, 21st century society. It is not an inclusive society. If it were an inclusive society, the government would understand that the wealth of the country should be shared by all. Education should be shared by all. Without sharing education, you cannot share wealth. The ministers and our Prime Minister argue that by giving an extra $50 million a year to category 1 schools they are giving students and their parents choice. I ask the minister and the Prime Minister what choice they are giving a family that is struggling to put bread on the table. What choice will they have to go to, say, Scotch College, which has been given quite an airing here in the parliament? Where will they find the fees to pay for that? It is no choice. What the government is doing is taking money that would have been going into a school that they could actually afford to send their children to—the good local public school. What it is doing is taking money and resources away from those schools. What it is doing is ensuring that the public school down the road will not have a computer in it, will not have the same sporting equipment that the rich, category 1 private schools have. I find it absolutely despicable.The bonanza the government has delivered to the category 1 schools may lead to a school like Melbourne's Wesley College reducing its $11,000 a year fees by $200. That will not benefit ordinary Australians and their children and it certainly will not benefit the people of Newcastle and Central Coast, the people that I represent here in this parliament. When we look at the members of the Howard ministry and where they went to school, we get some understanding of why they are giving category 1 private schools this extra $50 million. John Anderson went to the Kings School, Parramatta. The fees are $11,595. I know there are not too many families in Shortland that could afford that. Peter Costello went to Carey Baptist Grammar, Alexander Downer to Geelong Grammar, Robert Hill and David Kemp to Scotch College, Nick Minchin to Knox Grammar, Jocelyn Newman to Presbyterian Ladies College in Melbourne, Peter Reith to Brighton Grammar School, and Michael Wooldridge to Scotch College—Scotch College yet again!Well, well, well! It is no wonder that we are here today giving extra money to those category 1 private schools. We are not about delivering quality education to all those kids that live in the south-west of Sydney, the west of Sydney, the Hunter; we are about making sure that those with money, those that come from a privileged background get the absolute, ultimate best!We in the opposition support giving more funding to needy Catholic schools and independent schools. We are not opposed to that. But what we are really opposed to is the subsidising of wealthy schools, particularly when that subsidisation is at the expense of public schools, at the expense of ordinary Australian children. What it is doing is taking away their opportunity to gain an education. The government's SES does not take into account the resources that schools have either. I was absolutely disgusted when I read in the newspaper that donations and gifts to schools such as Richard Pratt's $1 million cheque to Scotch College last year will be ignored. The resources of the schools are totally ignored. These category 1 schools can get as many donations as they like, they can have as much money in the bank as they like, yet the government is still going to roll out this $50 million to the 62 most wealthy schools in Australia. I find that despicable, unacceptable and un-Australian. This government has a belief that it must redistribute wealth by taking it from those people in the most need and giving it to those in the least need. In other words, it thinks that those people that are poor and struggling or just making ends meet should take money from their pockets and give it to their wealthy friends. With this legislation we see examples of how millionaires who live in rural areas will be classified as poor if the postcode fits. Most of us live in areas where there is a mix of income levels and some areas are wealthier than others. But if an area has a substantial amount of people that earn a low income then the wealthy people will still have the education of their children subsidised. It is just not good enough. The Howard government's privatisation of our education system will have a devastating effect on the future of our children. This government is lowering the expectation of those Australian students whose parents cannot afford to send their children to school. This is really going back to the 1950s. I was talking to a young indigenous student recently who went along to a conference with other indigenous students. This indigenous student was horrified because she said, `Oh, when I finish year 12, I want to go to university,' and other indigenous students were saying, `Yes, I'd like to go to university too.' But the people that were in charge of this conference were saying, `Well, now, dear, maybe you shouldn't be thinking about going to university. Maybe you should look towards TAFE.' It is more of this stereotyping and putting people into little boxes. The little box areas—indigenous Australians, young Aboriginal people—should not be looking to university! Rather, if they are lucky, they may make it to technical college or TAFE!This is a government of the 1950s, one that stereotypes all Australian students and Australians, one that has values reminiscent of the past and a destructive agenda, and one that robs students of opportunity. This is a government that is ensuring that only those with money have an education. It is elite. It has an elite approach to education and it wants to ensure that its friends are the elite of our society, that its friends are the ones that get to share the wealth. The Labor opposition do not accept this. We believe that all Australians should be given the opportunity to have a quality education. We believe that to deny bright young Australian students the opportunity to attend university is despicable.The EBA should be abolished. We should restore funding to disabled students. Educational priority zones will be among things that the Labor Party will do, things that will really improve education in this country. The nations with educated, skilled work forces are the nations that will thrive. All Australians deserve a quality education. Your level of education should be determined by your ability, not your parents' income. If this government continues to privatise our education system, the system that 70 per cent of all Australian students attend, Australia will be the loser.21:13:0020161Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I have just been listening to the member for Shortland giving her perspective on the implications for her electorate of this States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000. I would like to give my perspective on the implications of this bill for my electorate of Lowe. This bill has provoked quite a deal of controversy throughout Australia. The party I belong to, the Australian Labor Party, has opposed the material parts of this legislation, alongside sectors of the Australian polity—namely, the states, the Australian Democrats, the Australian Education Union and the Australian Council of State School Organisations. I note that the opposition to this bill has not been uniform, nor has it been unified. That being said, there are some common themes which I am compelled to raise tonight, issues going to the divisive nature of the legislation. Firstly, there is the issue of the balance of the financial allocation to schools. The allegation is made, with justification, that private schools get more and the state schools get less. The electorate of Lowe is truly a microcosm of the primary and secondary school system. Lowe has it all: we have a strong representation of category 1 private schools at both primary and secondary levels, we also have a very wide range of state schools which have a relatively strong asset and income means, and parts of the electorate have poor state and non-government schools. Lowe is a microcosm of Australian society. The bill we are discussing tonight is going to affect every corner of my electorate. It is of the highest importance therefore to accept that this bill will achieve winners and losers as a direct consequence of the changes being made. I have visited many schools in my electorate. I have seen one state school struggle for over 11 years just to obtain a new school hall. Another struggled to get proper funding to upgrade the children's toilet facilities. My electorate has some of the richest and some of the poorest schools in the state of New South Wales.This bill provides major amendments to the existing State Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1996. Perhaps the most significant amendment in this bill is the abolition of the assessment method by the education resources index or ERI. The new system has an alternative method of funding called the socioeconomic status model, or SES, and is based on the socioeconomic status of school communities, as the Bills Digest notes, to `reflect the capacity of a school community to support its school'. The BillsDigest further defines the SES as an index calculated from Australian Bureau of Statistics data which links the students' home addresses with their ABS collection districts. A score is allocated for each school. The lower the SES score, the less likely that school will be able to support itself, hence the more money it will get. According to the calculations provided, no school funding is supposed to fall as a result of these changes. The highest scoring schools will still purportedly get a 1.7 per cent increase in funding whilst the lowest scoring schools will get an estimated 14 per cent increase from their current ERI level of funding. As for government schools, the government has committed itself to an increase in funding of $1 billion over the next quadrennium. In fact, this is a compounded total increase over the next four years.Essentially, the proposals contained in this bill ensure that all non-government schools funding increases, but by differing amounts. The truth is that there are both government and non-government schools in my electorate which need funding, and this bill should afford welcome relief to those schools. Both are in need of real increases in funding. Both are looking to these amendments as a means of improving the funding of schools and achieving the standards of education we all wish to see in our communities. But let us not be duped by the complicity of this government to veil its proposed new system under a banner of equity in education. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs in his second reading speech at page 2 stated:Under the new arrangements general recurrent funding will be distributed according to the need and schools serving the neediest communities will receive the greatest financial support. This means that parents at all income levels will now have a realistic capacity to choose the most appropriate schooling of their child. What a comedy of errors in reasoning! We really need to dissect this statement and look at each mistake separately. First, the minister is asserting that the new arrangements will distribute the funds according to the need of schools serving the neediest communities. This premise is simply false. It is false because it is a fact that all non-government schools will enjoy an increase in funding. Under the new SES system, all non-government schools receive a minimum payment of 13.7 per cent of the average government school recurrent costs. By definition, not all non-government schools are schools `serving the neediest communities'. The conclusion is also false, but for different reasons. Simply, the minister cannot conclude that `parents at all income levels will now have a realistic capacity to choose the most appropriate schooling for their child'. If ever there were a case of an invalid conclusion based on a false premise, it is to be found here. The argument is wrong as well, basing the conclusion on a non-existent link with the premise. Put simply, what has the SES regime got to do with a parent's capacity to pay? Does the minister really believe that, by assessing a school's payments requirements under the new SES system, this will magically make any one non-government school more affordable for a battling parent? This is fictional nonsense.It is true to say that these increases in SES funding will result in only modest decreases in school fees. Again, I note that some of the schools in my electorate are amongst the most prestigious and also the most expensive schools in Australia. By and large their fees are well beyond the economic means of all but the most privileged in Australia. The fee reductions from the new SES scheme are likely to be a drop in the ocean compared with the substantive gains that would need to be made to make such schools more affordable to the average parents' children. For working-class Australians, including single-mother families and those on minimum incomes, these amendments present no tangible improvement in choice of education. These people will simply have to take the nearest government school and be content with it.I say all this with acknowledgment of the outstanding work of non-government schools in making arrangements for those who do not have the economic means to afford the considerable fees that are required to fund the infrastructures of these schools. Education, like anything else on this earth, is a case of `what you pay for is what you get'. I note the considerable efforts to which the wealthier schools go to make their schools affordable to those who would otherwise be economically excluded from such schools. I know of many individual schemes where these schools average out the fees, in effect using the fees structure to level out payments, ranging from payment schemes to a complete waiver of bills in some instances. By and large, the higher category schools simply out-price all but the most affluent. They have truly laudable policies designed to accommodate a wide cross-section of society so that all benefit from the infrastructure they have built over time. I firmly believe that such practices will continue in the future. It will not be the amendments contained in this bill that will achieve the social equity goals which the minister has glossed over as his justification for essentially giving more money to all non-government schools. It will be the selfless policies of the individual schools that seek to act in a truly charitable way in opening their doors to all people who would wish their children to be educated there.The minister has confused the ultimate end of this bill with the instrument with which he seeks to achieve it. On the one hand he uses a new SES regime which effectively means more money to all schools. Yet the minister's stated reason for doing so is to afford greater access to choice of education. If the minister and this government were truly serious about access to the most appropriate schooling for children, they would accommodate the aspirations and needs of parents and their schools in their desire for policies which reflect the true doctrine of in loco parentis, meaning in the place of the parent. This means that a teacher is the parent for specific purposes. But this government, through its failure to ratify domestic legislation to better interpret the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, has in fact been a silent witness as states continue to ratify legislation which takes more and more power away from the parents. I have watched with dismay the corrosion of parental rights in state and federal laws. This government has made great play of so-called parental rights and children's rights. Yet it is in the policy area of education that we have seen perhaps the greatest invasion of parental rights in this country. I speak of the amendments to various state and federal laws, too many to mention here tonight, which have essentially made it so difficult, I say near impossible, for parents' rights in supporting the needs of their children. I cite part of the Commonwealth Programmes for Schools Quadrennial Administrative Guidelines, approved by the minister, which is reproduced in full in the Bills Digest:A fundamental principle underlying the Commonwealth's role in school education is to support the right of parents to choose the educational environment which best suits the needs of their child, whether the school of their choice is in the government or non--government sector. Choice in schooling leads to diversity which, in turn, allows freedom of expression, accommodates diverse beliefs and values, stimulates innovation and promotes greater accountability for schooling outcomes to parents and to the wider Australian community.I bring this quote to the House's attention tonight because it is timely to remind ourselves of policies which this government is responsible for in the evolution of domestic laws which have had exactly the opposite intention. I speak of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child. This declaration is an international instrument which this government is a signatory to. It has been used to justify amendments to legislation directly relevant to the bill today. I speak of the group of acts that come under two broad headings, child protection and education reform acts. On this topic I can speak only of New South Wales, but I understand that similar legislation exists in other jurisdictions. The use of the UN convention has been sold to the community to protect children. In fact, it has been used to deny parents the right to educate their children, especially in the use of corporal discipline. It is now perilous for a child to be chastised in any way. Any attempt to do so by a teacher is even more perilous. Government schools are universally compelled by law to implement non-corporal discipline codes that directly intervene on the natural choice of the parent in how their child should be disciplined. Non-government schools in New South Wales are now required to sign non-corporal discipline codes in fear of losing their registration status if they do not comply with the now infamous subsection 47(f) of the Education Act 1990 of New South Wales. In doing so, state and federal governments have ignored the broader body of criminal legislation which protects children against criminal offences. They have justified the existence of invasive new laws that trammel parents' rights in the name of children's rights, education reform and child protection legislation. A more correct terminology for these legislative aphorisms is `anti-parental rights'.I bring these examples to the House's attention tonight to demonstrate the true direction of this present government in doing what it does best when difficult decisions are needed, that is, it either does nothing or flicks the problem to the states. It is the case with the proposed amendments to the in vitro fertilisation debacle and it is the same here with the education legislation. If this government were truly concerned about parental choice in education, it would enact legislation specifically guaranteeing the rights of the child and the rights of parents in separate legislation. Instead, it has sought to do nothing, leaving the states to make the difficult choices of how to implement such legislation. What has happened is that, in the case of New South Wales, state laws have had to contend with the onerous task of interpreting the UN convention by amending children's protection and education reform legislation, often with catastrophic results in terms of parental rights. Parental disciplining rights, a fundamental aspect of parenthood, have been trammelled simply because this government has not had the political will nor courage to define what that convention must mean in the context of domestic legislation. It was Chief Justice Mason, in the High Court decision of Teoh, who alerted the legislature yet again to the fact that UN conventions and other international instruments are not legislation. They are not drafted in the same style. Very often, it is necessary for domestic legislatures and jurisdictions to interpret such instruments to give them legislative effect so that there can be the proper implementation of the spirit of the legislation. I am compelled to remind this House of the role of government in education. In particular, it appears necessary to explain to this government what its role in respect of education is. That is, government occupies a mediate role in education. The immediate role to educate has lain, does lie and always will lie in the hands of the parents. What this government is doing is reducing and ultimately eliminating the immediate role of parents to educate by redefining it. I note that the immediate role of parents to educate is a direct function of their unique procreative function. Their role to physically bring the child into this world is hand in glove with their educational and formative role with the child. Indeed, it is not until the child reaches the age of maturity that the role of the parent really ends—if the parental role can ever be said to end. It is for this reason that a parent has the natural powers over the child, including custody, guardianship, access and other powers. These facts are being progressively forgotten by this government. One has to go back to totalitarian regimes of nazism, fascism and communism to hear remarks about the state having a higher role and an immediate role that defeats the natural rights of parents to educate.I say all this in the context of the minister's guidelines mentioned above. The truth is that this government is, by stealth, taking rights of parents away from their procreative power to educate their children. Fortunately, the public is awake to this trend. This is why there has been an explosion of parent controlled and independent controlled schools. This is why home schooling has also taken off strongly, and the public has risen to the occasion and demanded that such provisions have been imbedded in the various state and federal government instruments.In New South Wales, we have seen the rapid growth of parents choosing to take their children out of both government and non--government systemic schools, precisely because there is no choice in the level and quality of the education of their children within these systems. It is for this reason that there is still choice in the education system as a whole. If left alone, this government would have further delimited choice in both curriculum and manner of education. Education is a holistic term that is more than the three Rs; it also includes the physical, disciplinary, moral and spiritual development of the child.It is wrong and deceptive for the minister to describe the legislation in the way he has in his second reading speech. Yes, the funding is welcome for all non-government schools, but I am yet to be convinced that the distribution of income is fair for government schools. On this point I share my party's opposition to this bill in that it is unfair on government schools. However, the greater injustice is that the minister attempts to demonstrate that this bill is somehow fulfilling this government's obligation to parental and family rights, whereas in the broader context of laws and international instruments ratified by this government it has pandered to `one world government' initiatives to take away more power from parents by denying them real choice in how their children are to be educated, particularly with regard to their moral education. The conduct of this government is tantamount to saying, `You are free to educate your children so long as you teach them one type of morality.' Where does this leave the minister's statement in his guidelines? I put to this House tonight that the conclusions reached in the Bills Digest are well founded: the bill does fall short in its financial allocation to the government school sector. Whilst this bill is primarily a finance bill, a darker message lies beneath the appropriations. That darker message lies at the heart of the issue of true parental choice in education. The gains made by parents in the state education systems have come at a price for those brave advocates who have fought the federal and state education bureaucracies to win the hard-fought rights of parents to educate. The minister can take no comfort from this appropriation to say that the existence of these rights is the doing of the government. Rather, it is testament to the mums and dads and the non-government and government school sectors that have fought long and hard for the concessions they have won.Yet even this has not been enough. This government continues to take the rights of children to mean the rights of the state. This government continues to legally separate child from parent. This government continues to obfuscate the meaning of the terms `family' and `parent' so that it is increasingly difficult for parents to exercise any control over their children. This is due in large measure to the misapplication of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in domestic legislation which has torn families apart in the most culturally insensitive ways. It has lambasted families with specific legislation and denied parents any meaningful control over their children.Finally, let me say that the minister has misrepresented the intention of this bill. This bill increases non-government school funding across the board. It apologises for this with a purported $1 billion grant over four years to the government school sector. However, let no-one be deceived: in real terms of affording choice to parents, the broader conduct of this government is to take further control over their children away from them and place further power in the hands of the government. That is clearly unacceptable. (Time expired)21:33:0020166Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I want to start by saying that I make these comments on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 as a former teacher in the public school system, with a brother and sisters who have taught in the state system, but also as a parent who exercised choice in sending both boys to an independent school after their early public schooling. This is crucial legislation. It will lay the foundation, for better or worse, for federal involvement in school education at the beginning of the new millennium. It appropriates over $20 billion over the next four years for the purposes of school education. It deserves full and well-informed scrutiny by this place and by all members. It should not be voted for or against by anyone on the basis of party political rhetoric but should be voted on only after thorough analysis. After all, it deals with one of the most important areas, if not the most important area, that we as legislators can deal with—the futures of our children. Yet typically, like so many others that have preceded it, the debate on this bill takes place without the necessary information being put before members of this place. The bill was introduced to the House on 29 June and was immediately referred to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee. That committee was initially due to report back on 6 September but has now been granted an extension of time to report until 4 October. Once again this place is being asked to pass a crucial piece of legislation before part of this parliament's committee system has scrutinised the bill thoroughly and reported on it.I welcome the member for Fremantle to the front bench and say that I am pleased to see her in the chamber tonight. As she has said in recent times, such treatment of this place by the executive not only demeans it but makes it largely irrelevant in the democratic process. I congratulate the member for Fremantle for her recognition of the fundamental problems facing our democracy in terms of the manipulation of this place by the major political parties and the manipulation of those parties by big business and others with vested interests. I hope she retains that stance in her new position on the opposition front bench. But I say to her also that perhaps the best way to bring back meaningful debate to this place is either to get enough people on the crossbenches so that the government of the day cannot treat it with the contempt we have become so accustomed to or to be bold enough to recognise that proportional representation is the only fair way to achieve representative democracy. Only then will debate in this place take on real meaning. The education resources index has been used since 1985 to calculate the relative levels of funding that non-government schools receive from the Commonwealth. It funds schools on the basis of their relative need by comparing the income the school is able to generate on its own behalf with a standard level of resource based on the cost of educating each student at a government school. As an indicator, it is therefore primarily concerned with the capacity of a school to raise funds on its own behalf. It has 12 different categories of funding, with category 1 schools receiving the least assistance. The most common criticism of the ERI—and I have seen it in my dealings with schools in Calare—is that schools servicing the same kinds of communities do not receive the same level of funding. The Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs 1998 report on the SES simulation project cites the examples of Launceston and Canberra as two areas where schools serving largely the same communities receive widely different funding under the ERI. In Canberra's case, it has non-government schools funded in categories 2, 3, 6, 8, 10 and 11. The situation in Canberra is not dissimilar to that in Calare where, even after some recent reclassifications, schools servicing students drawn from largely the same communities receive different levels of funding. Another criticism of the ERI is that, by reducing government funding as private income rises, the scheme actually acts as a disincentive for non-government schools to seek greater private contributions. A further criticism is that the review process is not responsive enough and, in particular when a school seeks reclassification, as has happened recently to many schools because of the rural decline, the process is simply too bureaucratic and not transparent enough.There is little doubt that the educational resources index as a method for calculating funding for non-government schools has passed its use-by date and requires either an overhaul or replacement. The question is whether the proposed SES model will provide a better way of funding non-government schools in terms of equity, certainty, simplicity and flexibility. The SES funding method will assess a school's need according to a measure of the socioeconomic status of the community or communities from which it draws its students. The SES is a statistical measure of the socioeconomic profile of a community. It is made up of a number of different aspects, including income, occupational status and educational status. Whereas the ERI aims to assess the capacity of a school to generate funds on its own behalf, the SES will assess a school's need by measuring the capacity of the community it draws from to support it. It works as follows. Students' home addresses will be collected, then linked into the Bureau of Statistics census collection districts data, which typically comprises about 250 households, and an SES index will then be applied to calculate the average SES score for each school community. Each school's SES score will then be calculated on the basis of the average SES of the communities from which its students are drawn and weighted according to the number of students from each census district at the school. The lower the SES score of a school community, the lower its capacity to support its school will be judged and the more government funding it will be entitled to. The SES method will return results in a way similar to how IQs are measured. An average school will return an SES score of 100. A school servicing a disadvantaged community will receive a score below 85. A school servicing our most affluent communities will return a score of 130. So how does the SES system compare to the ERI? The simulation of the SES model conducted in 1998 by the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs covered 2,262 of the 2,519 non-government schools across Australia—not a bad sample. Given the thoroughness of that report, I have no reason to doubt the department's finding that the study was soundly based. The simulation returned SES scores ranging from 56 to 135. Schools with SESs at the lower end of the scale included those servicing communities with a large Aboriginal population and other schools servicing remote areas or certain metropolitan areas. Most of these were Catholic systemic schools. Schools returning scores at the other end of the scale were generally located in metropolitan areas well known for their high socioeconomic status. While the range of scores was high, of the 2,262 schools involved in the simulation well over half of them returned scores of between 105 and 90, 53 per cent of the schools scored below 100, while only 10 per cent of schools returned scores in excess of 115.The simulation project's report went on to compare the SES measurements against the then current ERI categories. It found that, while under the ERI 76 per cent of schools were in the neediest funding categories, under the SES model there was a greater concentration in the middle ranges. The comparison shows that many schools assessed as needy or not needy under the ERI were similarly assessed under the SES simulation. The largest number of schools with SES scores above 115 were found in ERI category 1. The largest number of schools with SES scores below 85 were found in ERI categories 11 and 12. The problem appears to be in the middle, in ERI categories 6 to 10, where the SES modelling found relatively little difference between the communities being serviced but, under the ERI, the schools were receiving substantially different funding.It is important to note that, for each of the ERI categories, SES scores were returned across a large range. For example, ERI category 2 schools returned scores ranging from 100 to 135—that is, from average to very affluent. Category 3 schools returned SES scores ranging from 90 to 130—that is, from a fair way below average to very affluent. Category 6 through 11 schools returned very similar SES scores, ranging from 90 to 120. For a comparison of these two systems, it is again interesting to look at the results from the Canberra region. The 35 non-government schools receiving ERI funding that participated in the study, ranging from categories 2 through to 11, all returned SES scores above the average, in the range 110 to126. These results suggest that some of those schools were receiving a larger than fair share of public funding on the basis of the relative capacity of the communities from which they drew support.The government has made much of the broad support that the non-government sector has given the proposed SES model. But, as the simulation project shows, if the SES results were to be applied literally, many schools would have their funding altered substantially. Those that would have had their funding reduced would no doubt have objected to it. So it is important to note that, when the government says it has widespread support in the non-government sector, it is actually because all schools have been promised that they will be no worse off under these changes. The widespread support for the change in the non-government system is perhaps also due to the fact that the SES system will not apply to Catholic schools, not in this quadrennium anyway. It will not apply because, shortly before the results of the simulation report were released in December 1998, the government promised to ensure that the Catholic system received category 11 funding for all of its schools. I recognise the political difficulties involved in putting in place measures which might reduce funding to some schools. However, given that under the proposed scheme private income earned by all schools will be disregarded, one wonders whether all non--government schools can reasonably expect to get increased funding as well as having open slather on raising other income. One of the valid criticisms of the SES funding system is that, while students attending a school might live in an area with a low socioeconomic status score, they themselves come from a family with a high socio-economic background. For example, if you take the Kings School in Sydney, which draws many students from regional areas, one might expect it to receive a relatively low SES score. Yet it could be argued that it draws from the most affluent families in those low SES regional areas. This criticism strikes at the core of the validity of the SES system as a mechanism for measuring a school's need. While the simulation report stresses that the SES was never intended to measure an individual household's wealth, one wonders how fair a system which does not do that at all can be.I suggest such a result is unfair and wonder whether some second-tier test is required, perhaps looking at the number of students from a school with an SES below 85 who are in receipt of the youth allowance. The youth allowance means test now gives an accurate picture of individual family's incomes and the figures should be readily available to the department. A school returning an SES of under 85 but with few students on youth allowance would then be subjected to a second level of assessment. I hope the Senate committee looks at ways of amending the bill to ensure that this unfair aspect of the proposed change is removed. The other area of concern I hope the committee will give close consideration to is the proposal under the SES scheme to ignore altogether a school's capacity to earn private income. It strikes me that such an arrangement keeps the playing field in somewhat of a level state but then issues spikes to the students from the more affluent school communities, thus increasing the gap at an accelerating rate between the richer schools and those below average, not to mention the gap between those affluent schools and the public sector. At this stage, I cannot see how this treatment can be justified for the most affluent schools with their greater capacity to raise funds.In recent times, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has made much of the record levels of funding the government is providing to government schools. He has indeed claimed that over the next four years his government will spend almost a billion dollars more on public schools than has been spent in the previous four years. The true story is not in the dollar amounts but in the percentage of Commonwealth education payments going to each sector. In 1996, 2,221,557 or 71 per cent of students attended Australian government schools while the other 29 per cent, a little over 900,000, attended non-government schools. That year, 41½ per cent of total specific purpose education payments went to the government sector, while the other 58½ per cent went to non-government schools. That equated to Commonwealth funding of $606 per government student and $2,107 per non-government student.By 1999, the number of students in government schools had increased to 2.247 million and in non-government schools to a little over 978,000—70 per cent and 30 per cent respectively. In 1999 compared to 1996, each student in the government sector was being funded an extra $103, representing a 17 per cent increase, while each student in the non-government sector was receiving $495, an extra 23½ per cent. According to forward estimates by the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, by 2003, each student in the government system will receive $792 from the Commonwealth, while each student in the non-government sector will receive $3,314. That will represent a 30.7 per cent increase per student for the government sector and a 52½ per cent increase per student for the non-government sector. These funding shifts appear to be outpacing the slight drift in students from government to non-government schools over the past three years, which is used as justification for these increases. Part of the problem with this area of policy is the difficulty in pinning down exactly what is happening with funding. Like the health system, the fact that there is no clear responsibility between state and federal governments for school education makes it hard to know who to believe. It is not as simple as the member for Corangamite would have it—a matter of choice. While those with the means can choose their school, state schools cannot benefit from the affluence of their suburb or town except in a very marginal way. When you look at the figures, it is fair to say that, while funding for both sectors may be increasing, funding for the private sector is increasing by more not only in dollar terms but also in percentage terms.Given that the proposed socioeconomic status assessment system will not apply to systemic schools, given the commitment that no non-government school will be worse off under the SES system and given that even the most affluent non-government schools will receive a funding boost and be free to earn private income as they wish without it having any impact on their public funding, it seems fair to draw the conclusion that, from the federal perspective at least, the SES method is likely to further widen the comparative federal funding gap between government and non--government schools.I noted with interest the member for Parramatta's comments last night that parents of students from non-government schools pay taxes which provide revenue to a public education system their children will never access. The implication was that, because they pay taxes, they deserve to get some of that back to help their own children. I do not agree with that argument in all cases. People pay taxes for a whole range of reasons, whether it is for aged pensions, Newstart, Austudy, drug rehabilitation, research, the health system or, dare I say, to support politicians in their retirement. People pay taxes for all of these services which they might never themselves access. One of the most fundamental purposes of paying taxes, as far as I am concerned, is to provide as good an education as we can to all Australians, regardless of their means.As I argued in my speeches on the aged care reforms, I do not care if people want to pay $100,000 bonds to enter a five-star Moran nursing home in an affluent area, but I want to ensure we have at least a three-star service across the rest of the sector. The same applies to education. Our available resources should first be directed at supporting the quality of a basic education. I doubt anyone can say the public sector with its class sizes and social and economic disadvantages is anywhere near three-star across the board. That, in essence, is the difficulty I have with this bill. At least to the degree that funding increases do not match cross-over to the independent sector, it appears to misdirect scarce public resources. I fought hard, and with success, for equity for transitional emergency funding between independent schools in my own electorate. I know they are generous in the scholarships they offer to the less well off, but my larger duty is to seek equity across the total education field, in all sectors. To the extent I have outlined, I think there are major flaws in the states grants formula. So, with the serious reservations that I have outlined and without knowing the results of the Senate inquiry, I am reluctant to support the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill as it stands at this stage. I expect substantial amendments that will address some of the problem areas I have identified before this bill returns to the House, and then let the minister argue why those amendments should not be made. 21:53:0020170Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I rise to speak on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000. The oldest and most poisonous issue in our nation's politics is state aid. One of the proudest achievements of the Australian Labor Party is its resolution of this issue in the 1970s. Through the establishment of the Schools Commission in 1973, the Whitlam government gave full and fair funding to the non-government sector. It established the principle of needs based funding. All schools, whether public or private, religious or non-sectarian, in the city or the country, were to be judged and funded on the basis of need. This bill is a perversion of this great principle. It reopens the bitter wounds of state aid and sectarianism in our society. It delivers a special deal to the Catholic school system—a deal which cannot be justified in terms of either education equity or public administration.While other parts of the non-government sector are to be funded on a school by school basis according to the new SES formula, the Catholic system will maintain its block grants, to be administered and distributed centrally by the Catholic Education Commission in each state and territory. Uniquely in the sector, the 1,700 Catholic schools in Australia will remain with the old ERI funding system. I cannot support this special deal. In terms of education policy, there is no reason why the Catholic schools should have funding rules different from the rest of the non-government sector. The resolution of the state aid controversy was supposed to deliver Catholic schools a fair deal, not a special deal. Special deals are antipathetic to the whole principle of needs based funding for our schools. In this instance, the government is applying a weaker standard of transparency and public accountability to the Catholic system than to the remainder of the non-government sector. While the Anglican, independent and Christian schools will have their funding distributed on a publicly accountable school by school basis, the Catholic schools will receive a block grant. Taxpayers will not know how this money is distributed and used.As the Senate committee examining this bill discovered two weeks ago, the federal department does not ask for the detail of Catholic school funding. That was the admission—that the federal department does not ask for the detail of Catholic school funding. It is a disgraceful situation to have two different standards for the use of public money in the non-government school sector. It may even be in breach of Australia's antidiscrimination laws. Why should a Catholic school be treated differently from an Anglican school or a Muslim school or an independent school? Religious discrimination is one of the most sickening practices in any society, yet our national government is enshrining it in legislation. Not even government MPs can explain away this double standard.In the past I have had cause to support the member for Parramatta in his campaign to apply rigour and discipline to government outlays in rural Australia. The member for Parramatta has declared himself to be an opponent of special deals and pork-barrelling. Speaking on this bill last night, however, these standards deserted him. This is how he explained the government's decision to devise special rules for the Catholic schools:That request was acceded to by the minister on the commonsense grounds that it would provide them with exactly what they requested ...Let me repeat that for the benefit of the House:That request was acceded to by the minister on the commonsense grounds that it would provide them with exactly what they requested ...This is the commonsense on schools funding, Liberal style. It reminds me of the old drinking song, `We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here.' This is a scam of the first order. I am sure many members will be wondering how the parliament could have arrived at this position. Let me provide some insights from my time as shadow minister for education. Prior to the October 1998 election, the Catholic Education Commission tried to engage both sides of politics in a bidding war for Catholic school funding. On the government side, the negotiations appeared quite complex indeed. On 13 August 1998, the coalition parties announced their new taxation package, including the introduction of a goods and services tax. Shortly afterwards, the Australian Financial Review reported that government MPs had met with a number of bishops. One of these gatherings, organised by the member for Lindsay, involved 20 MPs, two archbishops and three bishops. If it was not so serious, you would think it was an Irish joke. I understand that issues such as the GST, native title and education funding were on the table for negotiation and, in some cases, intimidation. One bishop reported in the newspaper that a senior Liberal had threatened to attack the Catholic Church with paedophilia allegations.This shameful campaign seems to have been successful. During the 1993 election campaign, the Catholic Church, led by its Social Welfare Commission, opposed the inequities of the GST. One might have expected the same thing to happen in 1998. On 21 August, however, eight days after the policy's launch, the Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell, announced:... the tax package is a serious attempt to address the problems of an ailing tax system. There is no one Catholic position on an issue as complex as taxation. Tax reform is needed, the (current) system is inequitable.The Prime Minister, of course, has been quoting the archbishop ever since. Indeed, on 20 September 1998, Mr Howard announced the government's decision to move the Catholic system into the category 11 funding band, thereby committing the Commonwealth to an additional $100 million per annum. The departmental documents assessing the need for such a recategorisation have never been publicly released. As the ALP spokesman at the time, I wanted to match this funding quantum but not necessarily tie it to the Catholic schools. The $100 million per annum should have been available to all schools. Its distribution should have been determined by a thorough needs based assessment. Unfortunately this position was not reflected in our policy documents. After the election, I did not recontest my position on the front bench. To borrow the words of Luther: Here I stand; I could do no other.I remain opposed to special funding deals in education. They undermine the fundamental principle of needs based funding. They cause rivalries and resentment between sectors and between systems. They pit schools against each other, not on the basis of need but according to their political muscle and clout. They allow the powerful to prosper and the weak to be marginalised. They allow politicians to be corrupted and decision making to be perverted. Worst of all, in terms of schools policy, they undermine the historic settlement of the state aid debate. The minister for education, Dr Kemp, has embarked on a dangerous divide and rule agenda for the funding of Australia's schools. His special deal with the Catholic system reflects his determination to play politics with the education of young Australians.This is one of the sickest things I have seen in federal politics, and the Catholic system has been ill advised indeed to play along. They are destroying the credibility of their own funding system. They are undermining the very basis of state aid: the fair and full funding of non-government schools. They are fouling their own nest. Ultimately, however, it is not the members of the Catholic Education Commission who will suffer most; the real victims will be the children attending Catholic schools. Not only is this deal wrong in terms of education policy and process, it sells short the funding needs of Catholic schools. Sadly for these schools, the backroom deal has backfired. The federal department has now advised members that, if the Catholics had joined the new SES system, they would have received an extra $240 million per annum—$140 million more than the amount they settled on. The parents of children in Catholic schools should be screaming blue murder about this injustice. The Catholic Education Commission was desperate to maintain its centralised control of school funding rather than move to a publicly accountable, school by school system. As Rev. Tom Doyle told the Senate committee on 22 August: The Catholic systems would have actually benefited more from an aggregation according to SES levels but in fact we opted, in negotiation with the government, to stay at level 11 in order to preserve the systemic nature of funding for Catholic schools.What a remarkable admission. Doyle is willing to receive less federal funding, less support for Catholic schools, on the basis that he maintains control of the distribution. Imagine the outcry if members in this place said they were willing to accept less money for schools in their electorates in return for having control of the funds. Imagine the outcry if the second biggest school system in Australia, the New South Wales government schools, wilfully and deliberately missed out on $140 million of federal funding. There would be calls for the New South Wales education minister and departmental head to resign. Why should a different standard of performance apply to the Catholic Education Commission?Rev. Doyle is also operating on a false premise: school by school SES funding would not threaten the systemic nature of Catholic schools. In every respect the system would remain in place. Its employment of teachers, its organisation of teaching materials, its framing of the curriculum and its testing and assessment of students—its core work would be unaffected by this change. The only change would be in the funding methodology: the distribution of public money would be determined by a nationally consistent and equitable formula rather than by Rev. Doyle and his colleagues at the commission. As government members are keen to point out, Rev. Doyle has actually praised the new SES system as being fair and open to scrutiny. This begs the question, of course: if the new system is so good, why isn't the Catholic Education Commission joining up? Why has it refused to join? I suspect that Rev. Doyle wants other publicly funded schools to be open to scrutiny but not his own. Perhaps he takes his inspiration from St Augustine, who said, `Lord, make me chaste and continent, but not just yet.'I appeal directly to Catholic parents to right this wrong. I say to them: your education commission has let down you and your children. They have robbed your schools of $140 million each year for no other purpose than keeping power and control in their own hands. You should demand that your schools join the SES system and receive their rightful amount of federal funding. This is not only a debate about due process and accountability. There is strong evidence, especially in New South Wales and Queensland, that the Catholic education commissions do not distribute their public funding equitably. For a number of years, parish priests covering my electorate have complained about the underfunding of their schools. Funds are distributed on a per capita basis to each diocese. Redistribution takes place only within each district. Obviously this disadvantages schools in western and south-western Sydney compared with the North Shore. It is unacceptable for taxpayers to contribute $2 billion dollars annually to Catholic schools without any guarantee of its equitable distribution.This is not a standard the parliament applies to any other area of public expenditure. Imagine the outcry if the Aboriginal affairs minister could not detail the allocation of funds in his portfolio. Imagine the controversy if the education minister could not report to the parliament on the funding received by each Australian university. Why should the Catholic Education Commission be exempt from proper standards of public accountability, transparency and distribution? As long as the Catholic system operates under a special deal, the situation can only get worse. At the Senate committee, Mrs Temby from the Commission was asked about the prospects of Catholic schools at the end of the current funding period. She replied as follows: At the end of the quadrennium it will be another discussion.Another discussion with the government—that is, another opportunity for cutting a deal, another opportunity for a bidding war between the major parties. For those of us who want state aid to work, this is an absolute tragedy. The funding of non-government schools was never supposed to end up this way. State aid was not supposed to be a system in which a particular church throws its weight around and negotiates a special deal with the government. In some respects we have created a monster. The political system is unwilling to say no to the Catholic Education Commission. It has become one of the untouchables of Australian politics.I am sure some MPs will be a little startled by my approach in this debate. They probably see politics as an exercise in coalition building—strapping one interest group onto another and hoping to form an electoral majority. They probably assume that the Catholic Church wields substantial electoral clout, placing it beyond challenge in a two-party system. I believe that these assumptions perpetuate the myths of the old politics. The information age is driving a new politics—one characterised by the flattening of hierarchies and the dispersal of information. New technologies are wiping out the middle person and are empowering the individual. In a better educated and skilled society, people are wanting to make more of their own judgments and to take more control of their own interests and entitlements. They have less respect and less time for large hierarchical organisations. They want power to be dispersed to the many, not concentrated in the hands of the unaccountable few.The Catholic Church is, in general, a victim of these trends. It is losing popular faith and public support. The Catholic Education Commission in particular is an example of a flawed and authoritarian hierarchy. In the new politics, I believe it is a paper tiger—trying to bluff the political system and hang on to its concentrated power and funding. This is the classic case of an insider trying to exercise power at the expense of outsiders—the parents, students and teachers who, under the present system, have no say in the allocation of Catholic school funding. This parliament should not protect the rights of insiders; it should enfranchise the participation of outsiders. We should appeal directly to the parish schools and expose the disadvantage they are suffering under the Catholic Education Commission. We should highlight the authoritarianism of the commission and the gross inequities of its actions. Moreover, we should condemn this government as a government of special deals—deals to buy off rural industries, deals on digital TV, and now the perversion of school funding for the non-government sector.I am absolutely certain that the parents and teachers in the Catholic system will respond positively to this approach. They want their public representatives to stand up for a fair deal, not for the entrenched interests of an education hierarchy. These parents and teachers cannot afford to miss out on $140 million in funding—the equivalent of a seven per cent funding cut. Imagine the outcry if some other set of schools was losing seven per cent of their potential funding. That is what the Catholic Education Commission has inflicted upon themselves. It is an absolute scam. These parents and teachers cannot afford to give their children anything but the very best start in life. In short, they cannot afford this government's special deals. The parliament should have just one priority in schools funding: the needs of students. This should not be about party politics or the interests of education administrators, and it should not be about political power or backroom deals. I feel sick in the stomach, quite frankly, to know that parish schools in my electorate are going to miss out because of this deal and that they are going to be short-changed in this fashion. They are needy schools. I am a supporter of state aid. I want those schools to get a better deal, to receive more funding, to provide a better education for working-class communities in my electorate. How am I supposed to feel knowing that their commission has done them out of seven per cent of their funding? It is an outrage, and I will be communicating that directly to every school and every parent in the Catholic system that I can find in my constituency. I feel saddened to know that this bill undermines the principles of state aid and, in the absolute madness of Dr Kemp, is likely to reopen this terrible debate. I urge the Catholic Education Commission to reconsider the folly of its approach. It is fouling its own nest. It needs to rethink the deal it has formulated with this government. It needs to reconsider the folly of what it has done. This is not a happy occasion for schools funding. This is not a proper bill for the non-government sector. This, I believe, takes the education funding debate in this country back several decades to when non-government schools were not treated fairly, were not treated on the basis of need, and were not given a fair deal by the federal government of their day.For this government to play politics, to manipulate and to cut special deals, all for crass electoral advantage—or what they thought was electoral advantage—is one of the lowest moments in the history of this House of Representatives.22:12:0020174Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I listened with interest to the remarks of the member for Werriwa on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000. Whilst I am not sure that I agree with everything he said, I think there is a great deal of substance in the general message he gave. I was particularly attracted by the view that what we should be doing in this parliament is providing resources based on the needs of students. I say that in the context of this legislation. I make reference to the Bills Digest and take a moment of the House's time to read two paragraphs from it. It says: The Bill continues to implement the Government's policy in schooling aimed at giving families `greater choice in selecting which school best meets their children's needs'. The Government's choice and equity policy was first implemented in the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1996. Firstly by the abolition of the New Schools Policy which lifted restrictions on the number of new non-government schools; and secondly by the introduction of the Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment (EBA) scheme which changed the formula for funding to government schools. These initiatives are widely interpreted as Government support of the non-government sector at the expense of government schools. Hear, hear! The bill implements a number of decisions made in the 1999-2000 budget, and they are outlined in the Bills Digest. It refers particularly to the socioeconomic status based model, and it says that it is debatable how effectively the SES model will achieve its objectives of supposedly serving the needs of the neediest schools in the community. It says further: Evidence presented to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee suggests that wealthier non-government schools will receive higher funding than poorer schools, including Catholic systemic schools—about which my colleague the member for Werriwa spoke. It continues: Catholic systemic schools will not be funded by an SES rating but will have a system funding level which preserves their year 2000 funding categories. Such an agreement honours the Government's 1998 election commitment to the Catholic systems.I was not privy to the deal about which my colleague spoke, but I would say that he raises some very significant questions about the level of funding going to needy Catholic schools in the private school system. I want to make an observation about remarks made on this legislation by Ian Morgan. In an article in the Age on Wednesday, 30 August, Morgan writes: Dr Kemp has attempted to defend these measures as equity measures. This is a reference to the content of the bill. The article continues:But well over 80 per cent of the students from the major equity target groups—students from low socioeconomic status families, students of indigenous origin, students from rural and remote areas, and students with disabilities—are enrolled in government schools. The new bill directs money preferentially to the non-government sector, which under-enrols these students. The real agenda is `competition and choice', code words for an agenda of markets in schooling, increased privatisation of provision, and increased privatisation of costs. The flaw in educational markets is obvious. They allow the already advantaged through wealth and influence to increase their advantages at the expense of the disadvantaged.And I say: hear, hear! I might point out that, in the case of the Northern Territory, we are, without doubt, statistically the most disadvantaged of all Australians in relation to this bill because the highest proportion of our students are in government schools. In 1999, 77.5 per cent of the 36,000-plus students were in government schools, against a national average of 69.7 per cent. This figure is the highest of any state or territory—the next highest being Tasmania at 75.1 per cent. That rings alarm bells for me. I analyse the performance results of students in the schools and I look at the benchmark used in this place and elsewhere in the community for year 12 retention rates. In 1999, the Northern Territory had the lowest year 12 retention rates at 48.2 per cent for male students and 57.8 per cent for females, which were against a national average of 68.4 per cent for males and 79.5 per cent for females—the Northern Territory was 20 percentage points less in performance for both males and females. Of course, if you look in more detail at those figures, you discover that in the case of the split between indigenous and non-indigenous students, the figures are even more dramatic. I have figures for 1997—because I do not have the figures for 1999—and they indicate that the retention rate for indigenous students in year 12 in the Northern Territory was 9.4 per cent against 54.5 per cent for non-indigenous students. I think that there would not be a person in this House who would not believe that those figures are damning—and they are. We are seeing here an approach to funding of schools which will provide the richest families and the richest schools in Australia with pocketfuls of money out of the public purse, the purpose of which we are not sure of but it is supposed to provide some sort of equity. I note in a press release from the shadow education minister that in fact the disparities are very obvious. What I am concerned about, not least of which is the argument presented by my friend the member for Werriwa, is the impact that this will have on the community. I have lived and worked in Northern Australia for 25 years. For some of that time I was a schoolteacher. I have been chair of a school council. Three of my children attend public schools and another of my children attends a private school. All the private schools in the Northern Territory, bar one, are categories 10 and 12 schools, so they are at the bottom end of the spectrum. They are unlikely to benefit from this legislation to the same degree as Carey Grammar or other great private schools. What is of concern to me is that we are not going to get the outcomes that we require for public education and the bulk of our community's students by moving money out of the public education system directly into the private education system—as is being done here through this legislation. We hear in this place a lot about practical reconciliation. These are, in my view, government weasel words that somehow try to elevate the fact that they are barely carrying out their basic responsibility to all citizens to the level of special measures for indigenous Australians. In the Northern Territory, the government does not even bother with this subterfuge. It has a continuing history of shifting funds away from the most disadvantaged sector—remote area Aboriginal schools—and propping up urban schools in Darwin, Katherine and Tennant Creek. That could be justified if, in fact, you thought the funds were coming from another source to those schools in the bush. We need to understand that, if you move outside the spine of the Stuart Highway, away from the major mining towns, there are no high schools in any of the Aboriginal communities out there—and we wonder why the educational outcomes for indigenous students are as they are. We know that the public schools in remote communities in the Northern Territory do not have anything near the equivalent degree or quality of resources that their urban counterparts have, let alone as compared to Carey Grammar or Kings School in Parramatta or Geelong Grammar. Each of those schools will get something around $800,000 out of this exercise. The poor bush schools will get $4,000 apiece. I say that that is neither fair nor equitable, but most of all it goes well beyond the criteria elucidated by my friend the member for Werriwa on the allocation of funds on the basis of need. It is very clear that if we are to improve the educational outcomes for indigenous and other Australians who live in remote communities and in the bush we need to dedicate substantially more resources to them. I fear that this is not going to happen whilst we have this government in office. What we know in the Northern Territory is that they have been cutting funds to government schools. The current minister for education in the Northern Territory could be more aptly described as the `minister for slash and burn'. He is holding back 20 per cent of school budgets and he has left 50 school teacher vacancies unfilled. In one area of north-east Arnhem Land they are 27 teachers short. We need to understand that we are not now talking about Carey Grammar School or Geelong Grammar School; we are talking about remote bush schools where there are not only shortages of teacher resources but also shortages of capital. We do not have high schools. There is a shortage of infrastructure. The sorts of outcomes that we would want these children to achieve are simply not possible because the resources are just not available. Yet we have the Northern Territory government on the one hand, and now the federal government on the other, effectively denying them access to the resources that the taxpayer makes available to us in the form of revenue to this government and to the governments generally for the purpose of public education. What we are doing instead is shifting bucket loads of this money into the pockets of the wealthier schools in Australia.I noted with interest the comments made by Justice Vincent from Victoria which were read out today in the parliament by the shadow minister for education. I will not repeat them here. What we also need to know is that, if we want to get effective educational outcomes in these remote community schools, we need to provide teachers with the resources that they require. And part of those resources is that they also require are decent living conditions, decent housing. We know that absolutely no effort has been made by this government or by the Northern Territory government to provide them with appropriate housing, so that many teachers live in demountables. They live in demountables, which I am sure you and I would not care to live in, Mr Deputy Speaker, and which would be regarded as a health hazard if they were in a major urban community. You certainly would not see them on the grounds of Carey Grammar. What we know about these places is that the roofs leak, the plumbing and the wiring breaks down, and people's furniture and other belongings get covered in mould. This does not happen at Carey Grammar. The contrast could not be starker. I feel for the students in these communities, because they aspire to decent educational outcomes. Their parents aspire to decent educational outcomes. Most of these communities, certainly most remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, rely on CDEP as the form of income support for the community. They are not wealthy communities. In the past I have spoken at length in this place about the comparative disadvantage that such communities suffer as a result of their isolation, higher costs and lower income levels when compared with urban communities such as Sydney and Melbourne. It becomes very obvious when you look at schools such as I described earlier: Carey Grammar, Geelong Grammar, Kings School at Parramatta, Scotch College in Melbourne and Adelaide, Knox Grammar, Presbyterian Ladies College and Brighton Grammar School. Just look at the contrast and ask: how can this government justify shifting the public resources that they are seeking to shift in this legislation into those schools as opposed to putting them directly where they are most required—the needier students in Australia, these students who live in these very remote Aboriginal communities? I thought that, when I came to this place, what I would be doing would be sitting around with others of like mind, not necessarily agreeing on points of principle but at least having a reasonable go at coming to an agreement about what is best for the community. I have heard no argument coming from the government that could convince me—or anyone I know—of the validity of the course of action which the government is seeking to take in this legislation. It will not add to educational outcomes for those people most in need. It will not improve the year 12 retention levels for Aboriginal students in the Northern Territory or the wider Northern Territory school proportion because of the very large proportion of the Northern Territory's school population that goes to public schools. In any event, as I pointed out, not one of the private schools in the Northern Territory is a category 1 school—not one.It seems to me that, if it is the purpose of members in this place to develop good policy and make good legislation for the people of Australia, then this sadly misses the mark. I am happy to enter into dialogue with members of the government on the best way to achieve and improve educational attainment levels for people in remote Australia. But I have not seen them want to engage in such dialogue. What we have seen here is an ideological fix trumped-up by Minister Kemp 10 years ago, paraded now as government policy and exhibited here in the form of this pernicious piece of legislation that will just create further division within our community. That is not good for us: it is not good for this parliament and it is not good for Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Committees20177201772017722:27:0020177Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday, 9 October 2000.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 9 October 2000Pursuant to standing order 331, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 9 October 2000. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO THE EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS: Australia and the European Institutions: An Australian parliamentary perspective.The Committee determined that all statements on the report be made — all statements to be concluded by 12.40 p.m.Speech time limits —Each Member — 5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]2 TREATIES—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Report 35: Three treaties tabled on 15 August 2000.The Committee determined that all statements on the report be made — all statements to be concluded by 12.55 p.m.Speech time limits —Each Member — 5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]3 MIGRATION—JOINT STANDING COMMIT-TEE: Review of Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000.The Committee determined that all statements on the report be made — all statements to be concluded by 1.15 p.m.Speech time limits —Each Member — 5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]4 COMMUNICATIONS, TRANSPORT AND THE ARTS — STANDING COMMITTEE: Burning the midnight oil: Managing fatigue in transport. The Committee determined that all statements on the report be made — all statements to be concluded by 1.35 p.m.Speech time limits —First Member speaking — 10 minutes.Other Members — 5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]5 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE — JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Australia's efforts to promote and protect freedom of religion and belief.The Committee determined that all statements on the report be made — all statements to be concluded by 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits —Each Member — 5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]6 EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS — STANDING COM-MITTEE: Employee share ownership in Australian enterprises.The Committee determined that all statements on the report be made — all statements to conclude 20 minutes after the resumption of private Members' business after Question Time.Speech time limits —Each Member — 5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1. Mr Edwards to moveThat 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. (Notice given 4 September 2000.)Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits —Mover of motion — 10 minutes.First Government Member speaking — 10 minutes.Other Members — 5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 4 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Adjournment20178Motion (by Dr Stone) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.2017822:28:0020178Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I would like to take this opportunity to address an issue which I know will be dear to your heart, Mr Speaker, and that is the publication of the draft basin salinity management strategy for the Murray-Darling Basin. This document has been a long time coming, but we are pleased that it is now out in the public domain for public comment. I am urging all those people with an interest in the issue, of which there are many in the constituency of Mallee, to study this document and to make public comment, which is due by 5 December this year. There are two initiatives in the strategy to tackle the problem of salinity which is so evident right across the Murray-Darling Basin. It is still very much a skeletal framework document which leaves a lot of work yet to be done to put some flesh on the bones, but at least it sets out some very substantial objectives in order to overcome this very pernicious problem that pervades right across the Murray-Darling Basin. It actually affects 18 constituencies of this place. It is a very large part of Australia—one-seventh of the continent, about one million square kilometres, producing about 41 per cent of the nation's horticultural and agricultural wealth. It is a very important issue to the nation. The central thrust of the strategy is to focus on an integrated catchment management approach to solving our problems. One thing that I think we can be proud of in this place and as a nation is that this will be the largest catchment management program of its kind in the whole world. It is over a million square kilometres. It is important to note that there are many countries around the world that look with great interest on what we are achieving here in Australia in terms of getting all of the state agencies together in a ministerial council to tackle the very serious problems that confront us.A lot of people are already asking how much it will cost to overcome this pernicious problem we have with salinity and water management. That is a matter that we have yet to establish, but it is certainly in the billions of dollars. It will be a great challenge for this parliament and the government to meet that need. I am particularly interested in tackling the very serious, and probably awkward, political difficulties in encouraging the amount and the degree of community, government and state involvement in solving our problem. We are all in this boat together. It is not a question of laying blame. The salinity problems in the Murray-Darling Basin have not just happened; it has taken us 120-odd years to see the damage that is now evident. I would not propose that it take us that long to fix it, but it is a very long-term commitment to overcome some of the degradation that has now occurred—unbelievably complex degradation of the biology of our rivers and streams, and massive salinisation because of the incredibly changed nature of the water flows of those valuable rivers and streams right across the basin. There are at least 21 separate rivers and thousands of other streams.I think that Australia has probably had its wake-up call on this matter. We have had 12 years of sustained low rainfall. The parlous state of the capacity of many of the storages across the basin gives testimony to that, as well as the parlous state of the nature of our rivers and streams. A lot of people say it is all the farmers' fault, with their land management practices and the inappropriate use of water. But it is not the solution just to find people to blame. The nation has benefited immensely from the agricultural investment that has gone on in the last 15 years, and there has been a massive change in the culture of the use of water and the way that land is managed. (Time expired)2017922:33:0020179Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—I would like to take the opportunity of talking tonight about an issue of great importance to many older persons in my electorate of Swan. I speak of the recent debacle concerning the aged persons bonus promised to all Australians aged over 60 years. This is particularly relevant as I have recently written to most seniors in my constituency regarding this matter. The facts of this scandalous debacle, where the Prime Minister deliberately misled the Australian community for cheap political gain in the lead-up to the last election, cannot be forgotten and, I am sure, will not be forgiven by the Australian people. In the last two days I have been informed by the staff in my office that they are receiving up to 100 calls per hour—yes, per hour—by people who are appalled and concerned about the Prime Minister's conduct. Many seniors have advised that they received far less than the promised $1,000, and many were confused as to the facts of the Prime Minister's deception. Therefore, I would like to put again on the public record some of the statements made by the member for Bennelong, the Prime Minister, in the lead-up to the last election. Firstly, I refer to an interview with John Howard on Radio 6PR in Perth on 25 August 1998. The member for Bennelong said: You get a $1000 savings bonus for all people over the age of 60.At the Carseldine Retirement Village in Brisbane on 18 August 1998, he said:... for every person 60 and over there will be [a] savings bonus—a one-off tax free payment of $1000 in relation to any investment income that you might have.On A Current Affair on 13 August 1998, he said:... because you have investment income, you'll get access to the savings bonus which is $1000 for everybody 60 years and over.Yes, the Prime Minister did promise that all people aged over 60 would receive the $1,000. But did he deliver? No. In fact, some 1.3 million Australians received less than a dollar for the double taxation of their savings. To highlight this hardship, I would like to quote from two constituents who contacted my office in the last two days. Mr McPherson of Redcliffe said:Done for, course we are, they can stick it. I didn't get it, they didn't even say I needed money in the bank. I am a pensioner, I'm 76, worked all my bloody life and I've got nothing for it.Mr Riaschilla of Carlisle said:If a pensioner is wealthy and has $10,000 in the bank they get $1000. But if they are poor, have no savings, are sick, well they should get it, they need it ... the GST is for everybody.Others, in response to the mail-out, have returned letters to me requesting that the issue be taken up with the Prime Minister. Mr Dymock of Carlisle, for example, states in a form letter and further on:Before the 1998 Federal election, Mr Howard promised older Australians a $1,000.00 savings bonus. Now we find that most people have received less that $50.00! It's wrong that he can make yet another promise to people and then break it. I would like you to contact Mr. Howard on my behalf and tell him that older Australians expect better of their Prime Minister.He goes on to say: I am 70 years of age. I pay rent and live by myself. I do not own my house, or any property. I have been informed by Centrelink that I will not be receiving any money—none at all.Many of our Australians are doing it tough. Senior Australians deserve better of their Prime Minister. They do not deserve false promises and misleading statements. It is clear that the Australian public were told untruths in the lead-up to the election, and that has now become clear. That the community knows this and will be taking the government to task in the future is certain. It is time the Prime Minister apologised for his deception, took out the golf clubs and allowed the two Petes, the Phantom and the guard dog lover, to fight over the leadership of the Liberal kennel.2018022:37:0020180Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Yesterday, ABC Radio reported a Labor frontbencher who had likened the job of Aboriginal affairs on the Labor front bench as being like the `toilet cleaner on the Titanic' and also a `poisoned chalice'. The Leader of the Opposition stated yesterday that he would sack the person if he knew who had made the comment. We have heard today that he is not looking very seriously for the culprit. I think that was a disgusting comment, when there is so much to be done in the area of Aboriginal health, education, employment and housing. I congratulate the minister for health on the improvements we have made in the area of Aboriginal health. I congratulate the minister for employment for the initiatives we have taken in the area of indigenous employment. Today, we also heard that if you do a search of ParlInfo you find that the member for Dobell is the only Labor frontbencher who has used both the phrase `poisoned chalice' and also `the Titanic'. I do not actually believe that the member for Dobell was the culprit, as he has confirmed to us that the culprit was a member of the Left. So essentially what we are looking for is a Labor frontbencher who is known for vile language and is also from the Left. If you do a search on ParlInfo for `Titanic', you find that it has been mentioned over 200 times. It is commonly used. There are a number of connotations which you can give to `Titanic' in political language. For example, the Titanic can be heading for an iceberg. You can `shuffle the deckchairs on the Titanic'. But hearing that expression, the image that I had from that movie and from the story of the Titanic was this notion: when someone talks about a toilet cleaner on the Titanic, what I think about is those third class passengers. What I think about are the passengers in steerage who, as we all know, did particularly badly when the Titanic was sunk. When you actually do a search for `Titanic' and `steerage', you come up with one speech, and it is quite an interesting quote. The speech was in the context of the tax reform legislation, in April last year. The quote is:We have seen the grand plan concocted by Mr Howard unravel before his eyes as the flaws in this legislation and the GST have been exposed. The ANTS package is a bit like the Titanic—this huge vessel that might look okay but they have covered up the fact that they have skimped on the lifeboats. What happens when we hit the first economic iceberg? The rich on the top decks will probably be okay, but the steerage passengers are going to drown.Who made that speech? As I understand it, in searching for who came up with this comment the Labor Party have been looking predominantly at the House of Representatives. They should look more at the Senate, because the person who made this speech was Senator Faulkner—Senator Faulkner, known for his colourful language, a member of the Left, a Labor Party frontbencher. The conclusion is inescapable: j'accuse Senator Faulkner.2018122:41:0020181Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I would comment on the previous speaker's remarks but I have more important matters to talk about. Tonight I rise to speak on a controversial issue in my electorate of Chisholm—the proliferation of telephone towers in our suburbs and the need to balance the needs of telecommunications with those of local residents. This was only a sleeper of an issue when I contested the seat of Chisholm in 1998, but throughout my term I have seen the erection of mobile telephone towers all over the suburbs within my electorate. Most of these towers have been erected on the top of buildings; others more disrespectfully as a part of a cross of a local church.There are two main complaints residents have about the erection of these towers. The first is the genuine fear about the long-term health and safety effects on people exposed to the electromagnetic emissions from mobile towers. Whilst telecommunications companies assure us that towers radiate such a low level of emissions that they are safe, it is not surprising that residents remain unconvinced. There are too many historical examples of conditions that do not show symptoms until years after the initial contact, and mobile phones are a very recent phenomenon. Harmful emissions from direct mobile phone use may well pose a greater risk than those from low impact facilities. However the legitimate concerns of parents and residents must be heard.The other issue that motivates residents to protest against the towers is the total lack of consultation before these facilities are built. Most mobile towers are considered `low impact facilities'. Therefore they are not subject to local planning laws, nor do the builders even have to inform residents and traders of their intention to install them. Only stand-alone towers require a permit from the local council. Take the example in my electorate where a tower was built in the shape of a cross at the St James Uniting Church in Wattle Park. The church is adjoining a local kindergarten. Only the kindergarten parents were belatedly informed at a last-minute meeting and the church congregation was advised of the impending mobile tower to be erected. However, none of the residents surrounding the church was informed at all, and these are the people who will be living in the presence of this facility 24 hours a day. Many of the residents have become quite outraged about the issue and have organised a petition. Unfortunately, the building of the tower was completed without reference to their views or the impact on their local environment. The most recent example has been in the northern tip of my electorate in Kerrimuir. Local residents had fought off an attempt by the telecommunications company to install a tower across the road only to have it erected on top of the pharmacy at the local shops. Again the well-organised residents submitted an impressive petition to me with well over 100 signatures opposing the tower. Unfortunately, some of the residents have mistakenly taken their anger out on the chemist who is operating in the shop where the tower has been erected. For the record, the chemist is only a tenant. He does not own the building and had nothing to do with the erection of the tower. He has lost 30 per cent of his business, has had his car vandalised and is facing serious legal problems and financial problems as we speak because of this facility. The person he rents from did not have the decency to advise him that the tower was being installed and the telecommunications company even used his electricity to put up the tower. Local businesses are falling victim to a misdirected buyers strike, another spin-off from the growing problem of telecommunications towers.What is the answer on the lack of consultation? I was very pleased to see the proposed changes released by Labor's shadow minister for communications, Stephen Smith, on 24 July this year. His statement at the time showed that Labor has listened to the disquiet in the suburbs caused by the lack of consultation. In particular, the changes that will make a difference in my electorate are: requiring carriers to advise and consult with the relevant local authority over the proposed construction of a low impact facility; requiring carriers to share or co-locate proposed or existing facilities on a case by case basis; and providing for the relevant local authority or authorities to seek a determination from the ACA about whether a proposed facility is a high or low impact facility.These changes may be implemented through a code of conduct enforceable by the ACA or by the government amending the relevant determinations and regulations under the telecommunications legislation. Either way, the key is that these changes must be adopted in an enforceable manner. This will go a long way to quelling public outrage over the lack of consultation. Like most people who lodge planning appeals, residents accept they might lose, but they would at least like the opportunity to be heard.The industry also needs to look at its own poor handling of these issues. I would have thought it was both good public relations practice and good corporate citizenship to make an attempt to at least inform residents of the installation of a tower in their local area. I note that the government has belatedly realised that the planning framework for the construction of mobile tower facilities must be reformed. However, not enough is being done. I do realise that there is a need to have the infrastructure in our area, but this must be balanced against the rights of consumers. It must be balanced against the genuine fears of parents and residents who are being totally overlooked in this area. There is a growing need for a tighter framework to strike a balance between the needs of the industry and those of the thousands of families out there who deserve a greater say over what happens in their neighbourhood. I commend all the excellent advocacy work done by the various residents in my electorate. I simply ask them to continue raising these issues with me so together we can continue to pressure the government. (Time expired)2018222:46:0020182Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise this evening to inform the House of a very pleasant occasion when I was the guest of Tony Ford, the Chief Executive Officer of the Port Hedland Shire Council, and Geoff Blackman, its Mayor, to attend the official opening of the Dalgety House Museum in Port Hedland on Saturday, 5 August. The Dalgety House Museum has been a development proceeding over a number of years. I will take you back in history. Following the discovery of gold and the opening of the Pilbara goldfield in 1888 with Marble Bar as its centre, Port Hedland was reassessed for shipping as Condon, the port further north, had increased silt problems. The Port Hedland townsite was surveyed in 1895 and the first jetty was built in 1896. By 1900 pearling activity had moved from Condon and, along with tin, wool, stock and gold, formed the basis of the port export activity. The infrastructure of the town began to grow and by 1901 there were two hotels in the town. The Union Bank opened and a second jetty was built.Dalgety House had its origins then. The Dalgety warehouse premises were opened for business in 1903 and it is probably about this time that the manager's house was built. The first occupants of the Dalgety manager's house was, in fact, Russell F. Crowe, who was there from 1903 until 1910. The Port Hedland Historical Society decided in 1999 to adopt the consultancy plan that was drawn up by Sally Anne Hasluck as part of a recommendation of the Western Australian Museum. The office bearers of the Port Hedland Historical Society—Pauline Taylor, President; Liam Clayton, Vice-President; Arnold Carter, Treasurer; and Kay Richardson, Secretary—with the assistance of the Dalgety House Executive Committee—Trish Parker, Saryn Jones, Jenny Durshaw, Michelle Mackenzie, Judith Enright, Julie Hunt and Jeff Schaefer—carried the project through to fruition; a magnificent presentation of a historic manager's residence in the Pilbara of Western Australia. It truly reflects the lifestyle of the day, the merchant style of the day and puts on display the commodities sold by Dalgety in those days. It is a marvellous step back in time to an era when things were slower and the values of things from the outside world were much, much greater. To flip through the invoice books Dalgety issued almost a hundred years ago is a very interesting pastime, I can assure you.The Port Hedland society therefore, with the support of the community to generate interest in and knowledge of the region, has established the Port Hedland museum. Dalgety House has been restored to portray life in the early isolated settlements of the Pilbara through the story of Port Hedland as the gateway between the world and the hinterland for people, goods and industry. Despite the role of Dalgety's agency, the society seeks, through the formation and interpretation of a museum collection and delivery of public programs, to give residents and visitors an understanding of the growth of the district and the special sense of place. The tourist season is between April and October. Amongst the many spectacles that can be seen there today is evidence of BHP's activities, including its hot briquetted iron plant, and it would make people realise why that harbour is part of one of the most complex harbour arrangements in the Pilbara handling some of the largest tonnages in Australia today. It is a town of which we can be truly proud, part of the modern Pilbara.2018322:51:0020183Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—There is nothing that demonstrates more the Howard government's contempt for the people of Shortland than its decision to close the Belmont Medicare office in 1995. It was a well-utilised office and its closure has caused great hardship to the residents of the area. You can be forgiven for thinking that the office closed simply because it happened to be within a Labor electorate. The Medicare office serviced a number of elderly people, people who do not have drivers licences or have restricted drivers licences. There are a number of elderly people who live within Swansea, which is five kilometres from Belmont, and were able to travel to the Medicare office, but now they have been gravely disadvantaged. There is no Medicare office between Charlestown and Lake Haven, and the Charlestown Medicare office is one of the 10 busiest offices in New South Wales. The staff were recently surveyed and they identified that the reopening of the Belmont Medicare office was the most pressing need and the biggest issue in the area for Medicare. They followed up by saying that they could not understand why it ever closed. It is sadly missed by all. This has recently been compounded by the fact that four of the biggest medical practices in the area have ceased bulk-billing—surprise, surprise. They have instituted a fee scale of $25, and that is $22.50 co-payment and $2.50 out of the patient's own pocket, for pensioners and unemployed people. If they choose to have the doctor send off the form so that they can get a cheque and then give it to the doctor, they are putting in place a $5 charge. This means that people who are least able to afford to pay for medical care are actually being hit with a $5 charge while those people who can manage to wait to get their money back or have got some way of getting to the Medicare office at Charlestown, which is some hour away by public transport if you live in Swansea, where most of the elderly people live, fare better. Those disadvantaged people are going to be disadvantaged even more. Three of the largest practices in the Shortland electorate actually closed on 1 September, which coincided, not surprisingly, with the government's decision to require doctors to electronically transfer all accounts that they bulk-bill. The government gave the doctors $500 towards the cost of this new technology, and that was nowhere near enough. The doctors were going to be considerably out of pocket. This has not really hit, but over the next four to six weeks, when it really bites, I am very worried that there are going to be more practices that cease bulk-billing and more pensioners and unemployed people who are going to be disadvantaged by this government's policies. The local GPs in Swansea have actually been trying to employ another doctor for two years. One of the explanations that they gave is that they wanted to dampen the demand for their services, because they have been unable to attract a doctor. This really shows how the government's policy of attracting doctors to regional areas is failing. I was astonished to hear the minister say in question time last week that bulk-billing was not declining. It has certainly drastically declined in the Shortland electorate. If the minister cares to look at the figures, he will see that I am right. Shortland is an area, as I have already said, with an elderly population that is being disadvantaged not only by losing a well-utilised Medicare office but also by local doctors deciding not to bulk-bill. I am so concerned about this that I have called a public meeting to discuss the issue of bulk-billing and the closure of our Medicare office. The government's attack on bulk-billing and Medicare is hurting the most disadvantaged people in our community: pensioners, unemployed, the old, the fragile and the people with disabilities. This is a major issue of community health. This government is failing to act on it. This government is disadvantaging the people of the Shortland electorate, and I am certainly going to see that their voice is heard. We are going to work to have that Medicare office reopened and have the government change its policy on bulk-billing. It is just not good enough. 2018422:56:0020184Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—Protecting the health of the Murray-Darling Basin is a shared responsibility, not one of laying blame. It is a partnership between state and federal governments, communities and industries, who will have to commit their time, expertise, knowledge and effort as well as their finances. The new approach outlined in two documents, the draft Integrated Catchment Management Policy Statement and the draft Basin Salinity Management Strategy, recognises that many activities are going to be needed to protect catchment health and that the implementation of the salinity strategy will have a public as well as a private benefit. Therefore, investment will rely on a mix of both public and private sources of investment. The documents outline principles for government investment as well as those designed to trigger private investment, a lot of which is already occurring, especially in the horticultural sector as it gets towards more scientifically based and sophisticated irrigation technology. Over the next decade land-holders and industries will be encouraged to improve their land and water management practices in line with the local catchment plan, and in some areas to change their land use. The changes will aim to achieve catchment health targets as set out in these documents and to ensure the economic and social wellbeing of the catchment communities, of which there are a great many out there. Land-holders are not the only people who will be affected. Governments and catchment management organisations will need to change the way they do their business so that they can support and guide the changes on the ground. There is an enormous amount of science being collected that will need to be continued. It is not just people in rural environments either—urban people across the nation are affected by the nation's natural resources and particularly the way in which they are managed. Adelaide, for example, depends on the waters of the Murray River for drinking and other purposes. In fact, nearly 40 per cent of the Murray River's water is used to supply valuable water to townships and communities outside the basin area itself. This particular urban centre of Canberra depends on the basin, and it is the largest population centre in the entire basin. For those reasons urban Australians will be asked to share in the cost of protecting the basin. This will most often be through investment of public funds, but a substantial amount of investment will be from the private sector. The approach outlined in the two documents deserves the community's attention, and I hope there will be a large number of people making worthwhile contributions. It is to the nation's benefit, the benefit of our generation and the benefit of subsequent generations.2018422:58:0020184Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—I thank the previous speaker for his consideration in giving me a couple of minutes. Tomorrow marks the 60th anniversary of the arrival in Australia of the famous refugee ship the Duneera. Tomorrow at the National Maritime Museum in Darling Harbour I will congratulate Mr Henry Lipman and Count Oswald Wolkenstein, who have organised the 60th anniversary reunion, which will probably be the last reunion of people from this famous refugee ship. I thought I would relate to the House a very interesting comment that Mr Lipman made to me in the many discussions we have had prior to the 60th anniversary—the essential decency of Australia and British style democracy which these people came to. He said that the people of the Duneera, as is well known in the story of that ship, received some terrible treatment from the soldiers who were on the ship and who did not differentiate between the Nazis who were being transported by British forces and the refugees on the ship. All of their documents were thrown overboard. Many people suggest that this was the reason that they were not sunk by German U-boats, as the German U-boats picked up these German documents. Mr Lipman said that it was a great credit to Britain and to Australian democracy that these soldiers were court-martialled and cashiered even during the war that Britain was fighting against Germany at that time. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:0020185House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices20185The following notices were given:8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge—to present a bill for an act to amend the National Health Act 1953 to improve the monitoring of entitlements to pharmaceutical benefits, and for related purposes.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss—to present a bill for an act to privatise the Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—to present a bill for an act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and for other purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed Reserve Bank of Australia Head Office Building Works, Sydney, New South Wales.Answers to Questions in Writing20186The following answers to questions were circulated:20186(Question No. 1539)153920186O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 11 May 2000.(1) Does the Minister's Department administer any Commonwealth funded programs for which community organisations, businesses or individuals can apply for funding in Tasmania; if so, what are the programs.(2) Does the Minister's Department advertise these funding opportunities; if so, (a) what print media outlets have been used for the advertising of each of these programs and (b) were these paid advertisements.20186Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(A) The Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) International Awards and Exchanges Program.(2) Yes. One component of this program - the annual round of the Australian University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific (UMAP) Program is advertised.(a) Advertisements are placed in the Higher Education supplement of the Australian.(b) Yes.(B) Workplace English Language and Literacy Program(2) Yes.(a) Advertisements are placed in the Burnie Advocate, Hobart Mercury andLaunceston Examiner.(b) Yes.(C) Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) Adult Literacy Innovative Grants(2) Yes.(a) Advertisements are placed in the Hobart Mercury and The Weekend Australian.(b) Yes.(D) New Apprenticeships through Group Training Expansion Program(2) No, but print advertising is being considered for the 2000-01 financial year for the renamed program - Group Training New Apprenticeships Targeted Initiatives Program(a) N/A.(b) N/A.(E) New Apprenticeships Access Program (NAAP)(2) No.(a) N/A.(b) N/A.(F) Quality Outcomes Program(2) Yes.(a) The projects are advertised in the Weekend Australian and Government Gazette.(b) Yes.(G) National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Strategy.(2) Yes. (a) The projects are advertised in the Weekend Australian and Government Gazette.(b) Yes.(H) ABSTUDY(2) No, but Information Booklets produced by Centrelink are available free from any Centrelink Office.(a) N/A.(b) N/A.(I) Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program (IESIP)(2) No. Departmental officers directly promote the IESIP program with schools, pre-schools and Indigenous Committees(a) N/A.(b) N/A.(J) Indigenous Education Direct Assistance (IEDA) program:(2) No. The program is promoted by Departmental staff during direct personal contact with schools and relevant community organisations, as well as during the fieldwork program undertaken by the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs Indigenous Education Officers.(a) N/A.(b) N/A.(K) Literacy and Numeracy Program(2) Yes. National projects which reflect the Commonwealth's priorities for literacy and numeracy are advertised from time to time.(a) Major national newspapers such as The Weekend Australianand/or other publications such as the Campus Review have been used to advertise individual projects. (b) Yes.(L) Assistance for Isolated Children (AIC) Scheme(2) No. The Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs only has policy responsibility for the Assistance for Isolated Children (AIC) Scheme. Centrelink administers AIC on behalf of DETYA and is responsible for advertising.(a) The AIC Scheme is advertised through a quarterly magazine, Pedals, published by the Isolated Children's Parents' Association (ICPA.) The ICPA is a group representing The interests of rural and isolated families.(b) Centrelink pays for the advertisement in Pedals.(M) Special Learning Needs Program(2) Yes. (a) Major newspapers in each State and Territory usually in May or June each year.(b) Yes.20187(Question No. 1643)164320187Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 20 June 2000:(1) At which airport did the Ansett A320 aircraft carrying the Olympic Torch and International Olympic dignitaries to Australia from New Zealand land on 8 June 2000.(2) What aviation rescue fire fighting category is the A320 aircraft.(3) Do Australian or International Civil Aviation Organisation regulations require the provision of the aviation rescue and fire fighting services for the arrival or departure of international flights. (4) Were aviation rescue and fire fighting services provided for the arrival and departure of this aircraft; if not, why not and who made the decision not to provide these services.20188Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Ayers Rock Airport.(2) The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) advises that the A320 aircraft is classified as a Rescue and Fire Fighting Services (RFFS) category 6 aircraft in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards as stated in Aerodromes, Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Chapter 9, dated 4 November 1999, as “International Standards and Recommended Practices”.(3) CASA advises that there are international standards for the provision of aerodrome rescue and fire fighting services. These can be found in Aerodromes, Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Chapter 9, dated 4 November 1999, as “International Standards and Recommended Practices”. The ICAO Rescue and Fire Fighting Standards do not regulate the provision of the service but establish standards and recommended practices.Australian Rescue and Fire Fighting Services regulations are currently being developed by CASA.CASA advises that the current Australian practice is in compliance with ICAO standards and provides RFFS for the arrival and departure of scheduled international passenger flights, with the exception of Christmas Island where a standards difference has been filed with ICAO due to remoteness of the island and the frequency of aircraft operations.CASA advises that Ayers Rock airport is not required to provide RFFS as the airport does not meet the current criterion for the provision of the services. In addition, the flight carrying the Olympic Torch is regarded as a special one-off flight and not as a standard international passenger transport flight.(4) CASA advises that as Ayers Rock Airport does not meet the criterion for the provision of RFFS, and as the flight was not regarded as a standard international passenger transport flight, Rescue and Fire Fighting Services were not provided.CASA was consulted on the use of Ayers Rock Airport for the flight on 25 May 2000. CASA indicated it had no objection to Ayers Rock being designated an international airport to permit a service by an Ansett A320 to travel from Auckland to Ayers Rock direct on 8 June 2000 carrying the Olympic Flame.20188(Question No. 1655)165520188Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 June 2000:(1) Has the Australian Federal Police received a copy of the movement records of former Senator Colston, in respect of the `travel rort' court proceedings discontinued on alleged medical grounds outlined in the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions media statement of 5 July 1999.(2) Are the records a document of public record on the litigation file and available for public inspection.20188Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) The documents on the litigation file do not include movement records. Access to documents contained on the litigation file is a matter for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.20188(Question No. 1660)166020188McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 June 2000:(1) Did the Privacy Commissioner recently undertake discussions with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in respect of the disclosure of the Australian Business Number (ABN) information. (2) What concerns motivated the Privacy Commissioner to undertake those discussions.(3) Did the Privacy Commissioner conduct an investigation in respect of those concerns; if not, why not.(4) Did the Privacy Commissioner conclude that the disclosure by the ATO of the ABN was lawful under the A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act, when the Privacy Commissioner had not conducted an investigation in respect to the disclosure; if so, on what basis was the conclusion reached.(5) Did the Privacy Commissioner request the ATO to modify its conduct and practices; if so, on what basis was the request made.(6) What was the final outcome of the discussions between the Privacy Commissioner and the ATO and what action has the ATO undertaken as a result of those discussions.20189Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. The Privacy Commissioner has advised me that his Office held a number of discussions with the ATO in respect of the collection, use and disclosure of ABN information.(2) The Privacy Commissioner has advised me that the following concerns motivated his Office to undertake those discussions:(a) whether the information collected involved personal information;(b) whether the ATO complied with Information Privacy Principle 2 contained in s.14 of the Privacy Act 1988 when it solicited the ABN information from the individual concerned; and(c) whether in releasing information to Dunn & Bradstreet the ATO had complied with the Information Privacy Principles.(3) No. The Privacy Commissioner has advised me that on this occasion he did not conduct a formal investigation pursuant to his powers under s.40(2) of the Privacy Act 1988. It has been a long standing practice of his Office to conduct preliminary enquiries with the relevant agency and then seek to conciliate outcomes wherever possible. This approach has proved very effective over the ten years of operation of the Privacy Act 1988.(4) The Privacy Commissioner has advised me that his preliminary enquiries confirmed his Office's view that the disclosure was authorised pursuant to the A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999 and therefore lawful. The Privacy Commissioner has also advised me that he was satisfied that the disclosure of ABN information was made pursuant to a contractual agreement entered into by the ATO and Dunn & Bradstreet which contained stringent privacy and confidentiality terms and conditions.(5) Yes. The Privacy Commissioner has advised me that during his preliminary enquiries, he advised the ATO that the IPP 2 statement only partially complied with the requirements of IPP 2 as the statement was scattered throughout both the electronic and hard copy ABN application information guides. The Privacy Commissioner suggested that the ATO modify its conduct and practices in order to better administer its privacy obligations.As a result of those discussions the ATO agreed to:(a) review current wording on website and paper documents to improve notice to individuals as to what will be done with their personal information and to ensure better compliance with IPP 2. The ATO also agreed to seek the Privacy Commissioner's input and assistance in this process;(b) consult closely with the Privacy Commissioner in relation to any future bulk release of ABN records;(c) examine options to recommend to Government, including the possibility of an opt-out option that would limit access to personal information associated with the ABN; and(d) consult with the Privacy Commissioner in relation to any changes to the Regulations associated with the A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999.(6) The Privacy Commissioner has advised me that on 22 June 2000 the Privacy Commissioner reached agreement with the ATO in relation to the resolution of: (a) the wording to be used in its IPP 2 statement;(b) the location of the IPP 2 statement on its website and in ABN registration packages;(c) the appropriate wording to be used in bulk data licence agreements to ensure that stringent privacy safeguards are in place;(d) the development of draft principles for considering requests to suppress public access to personal information; and(e) a letter to be sent by the Commissioner of Taxation to all existing registrants to inform them of the measures undertaken to ensure the protection of their privacy.20190(Question No. 1676)167620190Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 26 June 2000.(1) How many individual transactions with individual members of the public were conducted by each agency in the Minister's portfolio in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000, and if available, what are the forecast figures for (c) 2000-01, (d) 2001-02, (e) 2002-03 and (f) 2003-04.(2) What definition of transaction is used to determine these figures.(3) What proportion of these transactions were or are expected to be conducted online.(4) What was the total cost of administering these transactions for each agency in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000 and what is the estimated cost for (c) 2000-01, (d) 2001-02, (e) 2002-03 and (f) 2003-04.(5) What was the total cost of administering the online transactions in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000 and what is the estimated cost for (c) 2000-01, (d) 2001-02, (e) 2002-03 and (f) 2003-04.20190Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows - (1) The number of individual transactions undertaken by the Transport & Regional Services Portfolio's material general government sector agencies, the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DoTRS), the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the National Capital Authority (NCA), are provided below: DoTRSAMSACASANCA(a)1998-99Unavailable#5,00037,369Unavailable*(b)1999-0031,8825,00037,0644,100(c)2000-0132,0005,00037,0004,100(d)2001-0232,0005,00037,0004,100(e)2002-0332,0005,00037,0004,100(f)2003-0432,0005,00037,0004,100# Due to implementation of new financial management information system*Due to change in agency's banking arrangementWhile it would be impractical to identify transactions with individual members of the public from the total number of individual transactions, DoTRS estimates that these would amount to no more than 5% of its total transactions. Similarly, CASA and NCA estimate that these would amount to no more than 1% of their total transactions. Estimates provided by AMSA are for two functions that involve a significant number of transactions with members of the public, that is, the Australian Shipping Register and the Marine Qualifications Register. (2) DoTRS, CASA and NCA have used the total number of financial payments and receipts, and AMSA has used new/amended registrations in, or searches of, the Australian Shipping Register and the number of Marine Qualifications Certificates issued as the number of transactions.(3) None of the agencies have conducted any transactions on line. However, in 1999-2000, DoTRS transacted 40% of payments and 5% of receipts by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT). Similar figures for NCA were 55% and 23% respectively. Agencies are currently further developing their electronic commerce strategy. At this point of time the estimates of the future proportion of online payments/receipts are not available from any agencies. (4) Agencies are unable to estimate the cost of administering these transactions, mainly because the transactions are often only one of a number of associated functions leading to payments or receipting.(5) Not applicable (all agencies).20191(Question No. 1686)168620191Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, 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) 2003-04.20191Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) to (5) The very detailed information sought by the honourable member's question is not readily available in consolidated form and it would be a major task to collect and assemble it. I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure of time and money to do so.20191(Question No. 1707)170720191Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 June 2000:(1) How many (a) judges, (b) counsellors, (c) registrars and (d) others will be attending the 9th National Family Law Conference in Sydney, 3 to 7 July 2000.(2) What will be the cost of conference registration and other fees, travel costs including Comcar and travel allowances for each conference participant category referred to in part (1).20191Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Family Court has advised that (a) 24 judges, (b) 4 counsellors, (c) 10 registrars and (d) 4 others from the Family Court attended the Conference.(2) The Family Court has advised that the costs were as follows:(a) $35,730 (b) $5,064 (c) $12,997 (d) $7,080.The Family Court has advised that there were no fares costs incurred by judges attending the 9th National Family Law Conference because all judges and “others” attending that conference also attended the Family Court of Australia Judges' Annual Conference in Sydney commencing Friday 7 July 2000.20191(Question No. 1713)171320191Lee, Michael, MPMr LeeMG4DobellALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 29 June 2000: (1) What is the current distribution, by institution, of the 21 500 HECS-exempt higher degree research places.(2) What is the distribution, by institution, of the remaining 3 500 Commonwealth-funded research places.20191Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) The attached table shows the distribution, by institution, of both the 21 500 HECS-exempt and the approximately 3 500 additional Commonwealth-funded ('gap') higher degree research places. InstitutionResearch HECS Exemptions for 2000Estimated `gap' places in 2000New South WalesCharles Sturt University12111Macquarie University57233Southern Cross University12515The University of New England37743The University of New South Wales1547-23The University of Newcastle55677The University of Sydney2205199University of Technology, Sydney368132University of Western Sydney346341University of Wollongong49612VictoriaDeakin University301224La Trobe University633177Monash University1619161RMIT529458Swinburne196104University of Ballarat4531The University of Melbourne230991Victoria University of Technology190110QueenslandCentral Queensland University8545Griffith University492214James Cook University33376QUT458142The University of Queensland2052-21University of Southern Queensland8169Western AustraliaCurtin University of Technology464206Edith Cowan University181157Murdoch University33245The University of Western Australia1149-88South AustraliaFlinders461-28The University of Adelaide89773University of South Australia35893TasmaniaAustralian Maritime College28University of Tasmania50481Northern TerritoryNorthern Territory University9213Australian Capital TerritoryThe Australian National University84346University of Canberra13256Australian Catholic University4997Total215003480* The number of “Estimated `gap' places in 2000” is the difference between the number of “Research HECS Exemptions for 2000” and the number of higher degree research places projected for 2000 in the 1998 or 1999 Profiles data (whichever is the lower) provided by institutions.20193(Question No. 1725)172520193Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith5V5PerthALP00 asked the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 29 June.2000:What progress has been made on implementing the recommendations of the inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into the loss of HMAS Sydney.20193McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:There are two recommendations of the inquiry that relate to the National Archives: Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continue inquiries to determine if, within the records of the PRO, London there are any records relating to a coronial inquiry undertaken on Christmas Island on the unknown sailor.A portion of the text of the government response reads:Given the extent of the holdings of the National Archives of Australia the most productive course of action might be to first search the records held in Australia for records about a coronial inquiry. The National Archives has agreed to conduct a preliminary search of the files dating to February and March 1942 to ascertain if any records relate to a coronial inquiry:Board meeting minutes and decisions of the British Phosphate Commissioner;. Memoranda for Board of Commissioners, single number series;. Subject files relating to island administration and employees;. Subject files, correspondence files, alphabetical series and confidential correspondence.The preliminary search of records in the Archives' custody has commenced with a target date for completion of 31 October 2000. The Archives plans to present a report on the results of the search to the Joint Standing Committee and the relevant unit in the Department of Defence.Recommendation 8: The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence provide the families of those lost on HMAS Sydney with a copy of their relative's medical records, such as exist, if requested to do so by the families, at no cost to the families.The relevant portion of the text of the government response reads:The National Archives and the Department of Defence will incur the costs of processing the requests for free-of-charge access, including photocopying costs, for those parts of the medical records which are in their respective custody at the time of the request.Arrangements are in place to meet any requests from families of those lost on HMAS Sydney for access to and free photocopies of their relatives' medical records in the custody of the Archives. In order to report against this recommendation information will be maintained about the number of requests received and the outcome.20194(Question No. 1731)173120194Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 June 2000:(1) How many Defence reservists are expected to serve in Sydney as part of Operation Gold in support of the Olympic Games.(2) Has Defence agreed that these personnel will serve on a continuous full-time basis as part of this Operation; if not, why not.(3) Are reservists serving on a continuous full-time basis entitled to additional entitlements in the form of (a) leave, (b) employer superannuation contributions and (c) other extra details; if so, what are the details.20194Scott, 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) 2000.(2) Defence has agreed that selected reservists will serve on full-time service. Those individuals have generally been required to serve in long term positions in a number of units. Most reservists, however, will generally be participating on a continuous part- time basis based upon the nature of the support to be provided.(3) (a) (b) and (c) Yes. Reservists serving on a continuous full-time basis are entitled to the same benefits which are accorded to service in the Permanent Forces.20194(Question No. 1823)182320194Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 16 August, 2000:What was the (a) average salary paid in each Australian Public Service salary band and (b) average staffing level (average number of employees) for each band.20194Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Salary Band(a) Average salary 1999-2000(b) Average staffing level(*) 1999-2000APS1247899.0APS23013767.5APS33354865.5APS43777081.0APS54105489.5APS647210152.0EL159686178.5EL272870171.0SES18657228.5SES21066928.5SES31279062.0Total52906853.0(*) The level was calculated by averaging numbers at the beginning and end of 1999-2000.20195(Question No. 1834)183420195Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 16 August 2000. What was the (a) average salary paid in each Australian Public Service salary band and (b) average staffing level (average number of employees) for each band.20195Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Average Salary paid and Average Staffing Level (ASL) for DETYA classifications during the 1999/2000 financial year DETYA ClassificationEquivalent APS ClassificationsAverage SalaryASLDETYA Level 1APS 1 - APS 3$33,065.29138.40DETYA Level 2APS 4 - APS 5$40,817.15412.26DETYA Level 3APS 6$47,915.30275.59DETYA CadetCadet APS$16,586.632.81DETYA GraduateGraduate APS$30,120.7522.04DETYA Exec Level 2Executive Level 2$73,646.24153.02DETYA Exec Level 1Executive Level 1$60,782.67303.65DETYA LegalLegal 1 - Legal 2$63,220.1812.25DETYA TraineeTrainee APS$14,294.001.31DETYA SESSenior Executive Band 1 - Band 3$90,969.7636.95All Staff1358.28Note: DETYA Classifications The DETYA Classification system has been broadbanded, therefore DETYA ASL reporting has been configured to report on the broadbanded classifications, not APS classifications20195(Question No. 1847)184720195Irwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin 83ZFowlerALP00asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 17 August 2000: What percentage of persons in the electoral division of Fowler aged over 60 and qualifying for the Aged Pension Bonus have received (a) the full $1000 bonus and (b) $20 or less.20195Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The information for individual electorates is not available.