2000-10-103917REPS2115102000-10-10—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Ministerial Arrangements2115114:01:0021151Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Health and Aged Care will be absent from question time this week. He is travelling to the United States to participate in the Commonwealth Fund's Third International Symposium on Health Care Policy. The Minister for Aged Care will be acting health minister in his absence and will answer questions on his behalf. I also inform the House that I will be absent from part of question time tomorrow, as I will be attending the memorial service in Adelaide for the late David Tonkin, the former Premier of South Australia.Questions Without Notice211512115114:02:0021151Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, isn't it a fact that your new system of assessing schools' needs takes no account of facilities such as rifle ranges, aerobics studios and equestrian centres, takes no account of school fees as high as $12,000 a year, takes no account of multimillion dollar donations and treats some millionaires as though they were poor? Prime Minister, isn't this the reason why your new system delivers the biggest increases to the richest schools?21151Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The new system is a fairer measure than the one that it replaced. The new system, for example, accommodates, in a way that the old system could never accommodate, for the fact that many independent schools in country areas of Australia have lived through the phenomenon of having had, 30 or 40 years ago, a far wealthier parent body than they now have, because of the changed circumstances in rural Australia. But, because of the historic funding formula that was entrenched in the ERI system adopted in 1985, those schools and those parents were unable to get additional assistance. In this whole debate, the difference between us and Labor is that we believe in choice. We do not believe that independent schools should be available only to a limited section of the Australian community. We believe people should be able to exercise the right of choice, and I totally reject the class driven claims of the Leader of the Opposition.2115114:03:0021151Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, would you outline the government's environment rescue plan to tackle the salinity problem? How does this plan build on the government's excellent record of natural systems care and repair achieved through the Natural Heritage Trust?21151Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Dunkley, who is chairman of the government members' committee on environment and heritage and has taken a long interest in environmental matters, for the question. I am proud to say to the House that this is the biggest attempt at a national level by any government of any persuasion to do something serious about the salinity problem in Australia. For the first time, we have a national plan which seeks to mobilise state and federal governments, local communities and all of those who are concerned to leave to future generations of Australians not only a water quality but also a soil quality which reverses the deterioration of the past 200 years. We are putting to the states a plan, to be considered at the COAG meeting on 3 November, that over a seven-year period will involve a commitment by the federal government and the state governments of $1.5 billion. It will identify the 20 most affected catchment areas around Australia. It will develop in relation to each of those catchment areas an action plan involving not only the state governments but also the federal government and local communities. For the first time, we will have a plan of action for all governments and communities in Australia to do something about what everyone has known for a long time represents one of the most serious environmental challenges, if not the most serious environmental challenge, that this country faces.We must all be concerned about the fact that one-third of Australian rivers are now in a poor condition; that dryland salinity currently affects 2.5 million hectares, which is five per cent of the cultivated land area of Australia; that, without remedial action of the type I outlined today, this could expand to 12 million hectares; that land and water degradation is estimated to cost up to $3.5 billion a year; and that, if we do not do something about it, in 20 years time the drinking water of the city of Adelaide will be unfit for human consumption on two out of five days. The only way that you can address that problem is to have a national action plan—something that this country has needed for years. I am proud that, building on what we did in relation to the Natural Heritage Trust and building on the other policy initiatives of my colleague the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, the coalition's environmental credentials have received another boost with the announcement that I have made today. I would ask the state governments of Australia to join us in tackling this very serious environmental problem. I hope that they will put political differences aside. I hope that I can count as much on the support of the New South Wales Labor Premier as I can on the support of the Western Australian Liberal Premier, because this is a national problem that transcends political differences. This is a national problem that should have been tackled years ago. This government has summoned the political courage, the economic commitment and the environmental zeal to tackle this problem, and I hope it is endorsed by the premiers because, if they do so, they will be making a practical contribution to the restoration of the environment of Australia in an area which represents a very serious threat to the long-term environmental health of our nation.2115214:08:0021152Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister aware that Geelong Grammar, with its Timbertop outdoor education centre and its equestrian centre at Corio, has an SES score of 111 under your new system? Is the Prime Minister aware that this score means Geelong Grammar is not ranked among the 217 wealthiest schools in Australia? Prime Minister, how can anyone believe your new system is fair if it says that Geelong Grammar is not one of the 217 wealthiest schools in this country and that it deserves $1.7 million?21152Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am not aware of everything about Geelong Grammar, but I am aware of one thing about Geelong Grammar. I understand that the chairman of the school council has indicated that any additional money that might flow to the school as a result of the changed arrangements will be exclusively dedicated to scholarships.2115214:09:0021152Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Would the minister inform the House of the difference between the government's approach to privatisation and that of the previous government? Is the minister aware of any recent statements in relation to a plan to break up and sell off Telstra?83UCox, David, MPMr Cox—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and it goes to standing order 146. This question was fully answered about four times yesterday.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If I were to apply standing order 146 as the member for Kingston wants me to apply it, then there would have been very few education questions asked yesterday.21152Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question. I can inform the honourable member for Hinkler and all members of the House that the government's position with regard to the sale of Telstra is unchanged. The government has been open and up front with the Australian people, and the remaining shares in government hands will be disposed of at an appropriate time. I note that about an hour ago, at the Press Club, David Hale from Zurich Insurance was asked a question in respect of administration in Australia. He said that one of the things he would do is get bipartisan support for the sale of the rest of Telstra. He said that this is essential because the current ownership structure is depressing the share price, increasing the cost of Telstra, raising capital and limiting Telstra's ability to play a role in the region.The honest approach which the government takes contrasts starkly with that of the previous government. Labor's approach in government was to simply say they were not going to privatise something and then to flog it off. They did that not just once but twice when it came to the Commonwealth Bank, and they also took this approach when it came to Qantas. With regard to the second part of the honourable member's question, the House will recall that yesterday after question time the shadow spokesman for privatisation, the member for Melbourne, gave a personal explanation. This personal explanation raised more questions than it answered about the spokesman for privatisation's position on Labor's secret plan to break up and to sell off Telstra. In the statement, the honourable member for Melbourne confirmed that he met with Macquarie Bank and he confirmed that the structural separation of Telstra was discussed. What he did not state was his support for Labor's public position that no portion of Telstra would be privatised, and he did not disclose what he said to Macquarie Bank on Telstra. I looked at his words closely in the Hansard, and he said:At no stage in this meeting or in any other forum have I ever expressed support for further privatisation of Telstra.In his explanation, he ignored the fact that in his book—and may I remind the House of his book entitled Open Australia—on page 179 he said the following:If the balance of Telstra is not sold, it may be desirable to restructure its core infrastructure functions into complete public ownership and fully privatise some of its service provision functions.He went on:Public money is more appropriately invested in the basic telecommunications network rather than the provision of particular niche services ...May I also remind the House of what the Leader of the Opposition said on 10 February 1999 in a doorstop. He was referring to the statements by the honourable member for Melbourne in his book. He said:The particular idea of Mr Tanner was to extract the net and to have a publicly owned net with the services provided privately around it. That's an idea. We would, in any roundup review, be looking at the whole range of ideas on that and other matters.I do not know what the honourable member for Melbourne considers a forum. Obviously, his ideas on a forum and mine differ somewhat. But I would have thought that his statements in print and clearly his discussions with the Leader of the Opposition on his idea to break up and sell off Telstra clearly constitutes a forum under any reasonable definition. The member for Melbourne continues to deceive and mislead. He has failed to clarify his position on Labor's secret plans to break up Telstra. He has refused to back Labor's public position that there would be no further privatisation of Telstra, that there would be no break up and sell-off of Telstra under a Labor government. He continues to defy the Leader of the Opposition. As I said yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition has two choices: he either backs him or sacks him.2115314:16:0021153Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that under his new school funding system the King's School, with an SES score of 116, is assessed as having the same need as the Berowra Christian Community School, also with an SES score of 116? Prime Minister, why do you believe these two schools have the same level of need?21153Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The driving force behind our policy is to give choice to parents. Therefore, you need a funding system that more accurately measures the financial circumstances of parents than the old funding system. The old funding system, particularly in relation to parents in non-metropolitan areas, was clearly unfair and unreasonable. That is the view of not only the government but also the National Catholic Education Commission and the Independent Schools Association. Those who sit opposite seem incapable of getting into their heads the proposition that in the end it is the needs of parents that count more than some kind of rigid formula.The reality is that you can go to any independent school in Australia—particularly but not only some of the schools that have been mentioned by the Labor Party over the past few days—and you will find thousands of parents who have made massive financial sacrifices in order to send their children to independent schools. That is a sacrifice and a choice that we believe should be recognised on an equitable basis, and that is the basis of our funding approach. Just as we fully support the right of people who are well-off to send their children to government schools—that is their perfect right—we equally support the proposition that a funding formula that looks to the financial circumstances of parents rather than historic judgement about the wealth of schools is a far more equitable formula. 2115414:18:0021154Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, would you advise the House whether the government has altered its policy on privatisation? What is the precedent for governments in this policy area?21154Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the member for Curtin for her question. I can tell her that, no, the government has not altered its policy on privatisation. It intends to do precisely what it said to the electorate it would do before the election. In answer to the second part of the question, doing what you promised to the electorate at the time of the election when you were elected into government is a policy absolutely unprecedented. Certainly in fulfilling what we said to the Australian people before both the 1996 and the 1998 elections we are acting in an absolutely unprecedented way, because before this government came to office the Labor Party policy was always to promise one thing and do precisely the opposite. The Labor Party would always go out and deny that it had any privatisation plans until it launched a Pearl Harbor style attack on either a budget night or some subsequent occasion. Let me go through the evidence. On 17 September 1990, in relation to Qantas, the then transport minister, Kim Beazley—criticising the coalition, then in opposition—said:... the opposition would sell 100 per centcriticising us over Qantas—... the position we are putting forward and which we are suggesting to conference, would sell around 49 per cent.May I ask the question: does Qantas still today have 49 per cent private ownership and government majority ownership? Who was it that privatised Qantas? It was the Labor Party; Mr Kim Beazley. The policy was then moved on in a higher plane to the Commonwealth Bank. Not only did the Labor Party promise that it would never privatise the Commonwealth Bank but in a letter dated 24 September 1993 to every investor in the Commonwealth Bank the then Minister for Finance, Ralph Willis, wrote this, speaking of the Labor Party:The government has no intention whatsoever of further reducing its shareholding. The government is proud of the Commonwealth Bank's record and looks forward to the Commonwealth of Australia continuing as the bank's majority shareholder in the future.If a private promoter had put that out in a prospectus and then turned around and sold off all the shares, you would have the ASC down investigating and you would probably end up with some kind of conviction. And then we remember, notwithstanding that promise in 1993—and I will table that promise—budget night of 1995. As it turned out, Mr Willis was then the Treasurer and the now Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Finance. Having promised to every investor that the government would never sell down the government majority in the Commonwealth Bank in that famous budget where he promised he would produce a surplus and came in $10,300 million short, the then Treasurer, Mr Willis, said in relation to achieving a surplus:This is achieved by cuts to spending, increases in revenue, and asset sales, including part of the proceeds from the sale of the Government's remaining equity in the Commonwealth Bank.The Labor Party backbench were not even told about that. They filtered in on budget night to hear the then Treasurer, in defiance of his earlier promise, announce the sale of the whole of the Commonwealth Bank. I say to the Labor Party backbench: it will happen again. You know it will happen again. You are not let into the secret until it is first cleared with the opposition. But I must say that there is one Labor Party member who fought this process all the way, who knew what was going on, who knew that the Labor tactic was always to say one thing on privatisation and do another— XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—that is, the lady who now interjects—it was the member for Dickson. She knew all along you could not trust the Labor Party. She was fingering them time after time.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—She said, `And they changed the policy.' Of course they changed the policy, and they will change it again. That is the whole point: they always change their policy. They changed their policy on Qantas, they changed their policy on the Commonwealth Bank and they will change their policy on Telstra. She was right previously.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—She now interjects: `I do believe them—now.' And she did believe them then, she says. The member for Dickson did not believe them then. She said on 9 December 1996:The Labor government ... hoodwinked a great many people about what majority Commonwealth ownership means. ... Then history says that the government—contrary to all assurances—said, `We are going to sell the rest.' And it happened.Contrary to all assurances, they said, `We are going to sell the rest,' and they did. Contrary to all assurances, do not listen to what they say, Mr Speaker; watch what they do.2115514:25:0021155Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. I ask: does the Treasurer recall a meeting in his electorate office with representatives of the Remuneration Planning Corporation? Isn't it true that at the meeting the RPC executives asked you not to legislate against schemes used by company executives to avoid tax on their share options, and you remarked how refreshing it was to be asked to do nothing? Treasurer, isn't that exactly what you have done about legislating against these bottom-of-the-harbour style schemes—absolutely nothing?21155Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Australian Taxation Office has consistently taken the view in the past, and it still does, that abusive, employee share schemes—abusive, artificial, employee schemes—are contrary to part IVA of the tax act and associated legislation, because their dominant purpose is a tax benefit, and that they will be struck down under those provisions which were put in place to prevent abusive and artificial schemes. The Commissioner for Taxation has consistently advised the government that he intends to take all steps to enforce that, and we rely upon his advice. I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition then alleges that there must have been something wrong with meeting the Remuneration Planning Corporation—I think that is the essence of what he says.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will respond to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—If there is nothing wrong with meeting the Remuneration Planning Corporation, why did you ask, `Did you have a meeting?' The heavy implication is that anybody who met with the Remuneration Planning Corporation, which presumably is in favour of employee share schemes, is doing something wrong or should not be taking advice from them—a heinous thing to take advice from the—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Did you take advice from them?CT4Mr COSTELLO—He interjects: `Did you take advice from them?'YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is a persistent interjector! The Treasurer has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked if I took advice from the Remuneration Planning Corporation, the assumption being that one should not take advice from the Remuneration Planning Corporation. I want to table a document here on that point, which is called `Handle with Care'. There is one member of the opposition frontbench who will know the name. It was a publication of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which the Australian Council of Trade Unions produced to promote employee share schemes. The President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions who presided over this report `Handle with Care' was Mr Martin Ferguson. I want to read out the acknowledgment and thanks from the ACTU at the beginning of `Handle with Care': This publication was produced with the assistance of the Australian Employee Share Ownership Association, in particular, Mr Geoff Price, the principal from the Remuneration Planning Corporation, who prepared the initial draft and provided ongoing advice.I get asked questions about whether I took advice from the Remuneration Planning Corporation—when the ACTU had it writing its reports! One ACTU president badly letting down another. I table the document.2115614:30:0021156Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister advise the House about the benefits and opportunities for young Australians from the partial sale of Telstra? Is the minister aware of alternative policies, and what is his response?21156Kemp, 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 Barker for his question. There is no doubt that the partial sale of Telstra has delivered enormous benefits to the Australian community and created tens of thousands of jobs. About $990 million has been released into the community from the two tranches of the sale of Telstra to support a very wide range of projects. Some $250 million has gone into the Networking the Nation project which provides world-class telecommunications infrastructure for regional and rural Australians. We have seen $150 million allocated for untimed local calls in extended zones, which will allow even more young Australians to access the Internet without the burden of STD telephone rates, and we have seen $158 million go to the Building on IT Strengths program, including $78 million for incubators for young Australians to get their great information, technology and communications ideas to market. In September I announced in Tasmania a project worth $9.4 million to support skills development in the ecotourism and IT industries. This is going to help provide jobs to some 1,800 Tasmanians over the next four years.Just to show the great benefits of the partial privatisation of Telstra, I also draw attention to the fact that in Tasmania last week another project of great importance was launched by Senator Gibson and the Tasmanian Minister for Education, called Connecting Tasmanian Schools. This initiative is going to establish area networks linking government schools as well as provide additional computers and support equipment for both government and non-government schools in Tasmania. No wonder the Tasmanian Labor Premier, Mr Bacon, has called the privatisation of Telstra `a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity', because all these projects represent a very substantial investment in building communities and building opportunities in Australia. The Labor Party of course, which voted against and opposed all these initiatives, are showing that they are a party not committed to the kinds of community developments which this government believes in and which the partial privatisation of Telstra so far has permitted. The only question in everybody's mind is: can you believe Labor on this; will they do the same in office as they have done in opposition? We know the answer to that question. They say they will not, but they will.2115614:34:0021156Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the parliamentary report on employee share ownership released yesterday in which government members recommend legalising bottom-of-the-harbour style share schemes for company executives. Will the Treasurer rule out legislating to allow company executives to defer tax on their share options indefinitely? Will the Treasurer introduce legislation without further delay to crack down on this abuse of employee share ownership schemes by company executives?21157Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Can I say first of all that with this, as with so many of the questions that are asked, the Labor Party make a false assertion on the old ACTU theory that if you make a false assertion long enough somebody will believe it. Government members who contributed to a report released yesterday on employee share ownership advocated no such thing as legalising bottom-of-the-harbour schemes. It is a totally false allegation and, frankly, you ought to know better. As I said earlier, I must say I am totally bewildered by the Australian Labor Party's position. On the one hand they go to their conference and say they want to promote employee share ownership, and then on the other hand they come in here and engage in useless, childish ploys—like those engaged in by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who asks, `Did you take advice from the Remuneration Planning Corporation'— DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! Deputy Leader of the Opposition!CT4Mr COSTELLO—when one of his frontbenchers was having reports written by the Remuneration Planning Corporation.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is choosing to defy the chair.CT4Mr COSTELLO—We then had this question about legalising bottom-of-the-harbour schemes. The bottom-of-the-harbour schemes were artificial schemes—if I can go back through a bit of tax history—and the view was taken at that time that no sooner had you taken one such scheme to court than somebody would amend it in some particular way and make it legal. So the government at that particular time decided to change the tax law and introduced general anti-avoidance provisions. I believe it was the then Treasurer who did that. The general anti-avoidance provisions say that it does not matter whether you engineer things from this kind of structure to that kind of structure—if your dominant purpose is to get a tax break of some kind or another, the scheme can be struck down and tax can be assessed on the basis of what would be the transaction otherwise. Those provisions were inserted into the law so that such schemes could be attacked under general anti-avoidance provisions.The commissioner's advice, as I said before, in relation to abusive employee schemes—not all schemes, but abusive employee schemes where the dominant purpose is a tax benefit—is that they will be found contrary to the law. That is the way in which he proposes to attack them. Those are the steps that he takes. That is why the provision is actually in the law. I know that the Labor Party has a lot of trouble with tax policy. The Labor Party has sat in opposition in this parliament now for five years; what was its big tax policy? The `r word'—a word which it cannot now even pronounce. Let's say it for them: `roll-back'. In order to try to disguise the absolute lack of policy, they run around making false accusations.I want to finish on this point. As far as this side of parliament is concerned, we actually want to encourage share ownership. We believe that employees should be able to own shares. We do not think you should lock employees up and have union bosses tell them what to join and how to think. We think you should give them a go in the company. We are pleased that Australia now has the highest per capita share ownership in the world. The only thing I can say to the Labor Party is that, if they want to encourage it further, they should get on with their policy to privatise Telstra.2115714:39:0021157McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen recent international reports on Australia as a new economy? What do these reports say about Australia's credentials as a new economy?7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect is warned.21157Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Members of the House will be aware that, in a recent survey done by the OECD, Australia was found to be one of the six economies in the developed world that had so lifted its productivity and its performance that it was described as a `new economy'. The test of whether an economy is a new economy is whether it is able to so lift its productivity that it grows its economy faster with low inflation. On any basis, Australia has performed well on that test; in fact, in terms of multi-factor productivity Australia has outranked the United States over this decade, particularly over the last four years of this decade. This was a point made by the Economist on 23 September. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—David Hale.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, `David Hale'.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What did he say about you?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will put that down.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As I recall, he said that the best thing Australia could do—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is defying the chair.CT4Mr COSTELLO—was privatise Telstra. Some mothers do have 'em, don't they? The Labor Party sits there and says, `David Hale', who gets up at the Press Club today and says, `The best thing that Australia could do would be to privatise Telstra.' This is a government which has cut capital gains tax in half—something the Labor Party never did; has made US pension funds able to invest in venture capital without paying capital gains tax—something the Labor Party never did; cut company tax—something the Labor Party never did; cut income tax—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Rubbish! Not true!CT4Mr COSTELLO—The 1995 budget, which I read out earlier, increased the company tax from 33 per cent to 36 per cent. That was the last Labor Party budget.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What about the one that took it down?CT4Mr COSTELLO—You took it down and brought it back up again! Some mothers do have 'em. Really: `What about the one that brought it down'!83VEmerson, Craig, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Rankin is warned.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Labor Party said it was going to cut company tax, but got re-elected in 1993 and increased company tax so that when this government came to office it was 36 per cent. It had previously been 33 per cent. This government has put in place cuts to company tax—from 36 per cent to 30 per cent. We cut company tax and, in relation to US pension funds, we cut capital gains tax—never been done before; the Labor Party never cut capital gains tax. We make it so that US pension funds can invest capital gains tax free in venture capital—never done by the Labor Party. We cut company tax and we cut income taxes—and we are fought every step of the way on income taxes. We fight for a privatised telecommunications carrier and we are fought every step of the way, and then the Labor Party says at the end of all that, `We are in favour of a new economy.' You have opposed all of the tax reductions and privatisation programs which could take us there. The Economist says:The popular distinction between the old and the new economy completely misses the point. The most important aspect of the new economy is not the shift to high-tech industries, but the way that IT will improve the efficiency of all parts of the economy, especially old-economy firms.... ... ...... historically, the biggest economic gains from a new technology have come not from its invention and production, but from its exploitation.This is all about creating an open economy which can adapt IT to make old economy firms more productive, which can build new economy industries with lower capital gains taxes and lower company taxes, and which can harness productivity which will come out of labour market reforms and out of privatisation. The OECD finding was that Australia has had success amongst the six top economies of the world over the last 10 years. That is not to say that we can now stop. It is important that we continue, that we take every step we can to enhance productivity in this country, that we run a good fiscal policy, that we run a good privatisation policy, that we run a good tax policy, and that we ensure, with labour market reform, that we get every piece of benefit we can to build a stronger Australian economy in the future. 2115914:45:0021159Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—My question is also to the Treasurer. Isn't it true that, under the recommendations of yesterday's majority report on the employee benefit schemes, and I refer particularly to recommendation 31, company executives already earning millions of dollars through share options would be able to defer paying their taxes indefinitely, even when non-executive employees are shut out of the scheme? Will you rule out ever supporting this blatant rort for highly paid executives?21159Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The report that was brought down yesterday, I believe under the chairmanship of Dr Nelson, the member for Bradfield, makes a number of recommendations. It was brought down yesterday; the government will look at those recommendations, as it looks at all recommendations, and it will announce its position accordingly.2115914:46:0021159Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, would you inform the House of the success of the government's waterfront reform agenda? And are you aware of any comments in support of the government's drive to improve the efficiency of Australia's export gateway?21159Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I am pleased to be able to advise all members of the House that the Bureau of Transport Economics has today released a very important report. In fact, I think it is a report which in time will be seen as a bit of a defining moment in the quest for an improved productivity performance on the Australian waterfront. The report demonstrates that in each of the three months to June of this year—April, May and June—Australia recorded the best productivity on the Australian waterfront that we have ever had since the commencement of the series. This is not just an improvement in one or two ports; this is an improvement right across the board and in particular in the big ports in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Fremantle, where of course the reform process has been a long hard road to achieve. The jump in this month's quarter is up from 20 lifts an hour to 23 lifts an hour. We are getting much closer to the government's target of 25 lifts an hour, which was the benchmark objective that we set.I am also able to say to the House that we have had independent reports from both the stevedores that on many occasions they have exceeded these figures by a very significant margin, demonstrating what we have always said, which was always denied by the Labor Party, and that is that, with significant reform on the waterfront, we can have a decent performance. That is, of course, not to say that there is not more work to be done, but I can report to the parliament that all the rorts and the rip-offs—ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—All the rorts!WI4Mr REITH—supported by the Labor Party for years—all those rip-offs on the waterfront—are in fact now behind us.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—We are now achieving 23 crane lifts an hour—Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—but with basically half the number of people who were employed there when the Labor Party was in charge. I think many members—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. There has been no sense of courtesy extended in the House to the minister.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will excuse himself from the House. The member for Burke then left the chamber. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I issue a general warning.WI4Mr REITH—I think members might remember what John Coombs told the Australian Financial Review on 19 November last year. He said:We used to boast that we could stop the country in 15 minutes on the phone. You just had to phone the delegates, and they would walk off the job ... The fact is we can no longer do what we did. Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—This country had been bedevilled for years by a waterfront where the unions could basically hold this country to ransom. All through that reform process, the fact is that the Labor Party opposed reform—Mrs Irwin interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler will excuse herself from the House. The member for Fowler then left the chamber.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Do members not understand what a general warning means? The minister has the call.WI4Mr REITH—So successful have these changes on the waterfront been that, only last week on 5 October, Bob Carr, the New South Wales Labor Premier, said in the Sydney Morning Herald:These are the sorts of boasts you can routinely make of this country now. What are you doing about productivity, the president of the World Bank, Jim Wolfensohn, asked me? I was able to respond that our labour productivity growth in the `90s was stronger in Australia than the US. In underground mining and on the waterfront, two once-laggard industries, our productivity is up with the world's best.No Labor Premier was ever able to say that when Labor was in office and, furthermore, if Labor is ever in office again, its policy to abolish the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act—ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—Sit down, Pete!WI4Mr REITH—and to go back to industry bargaining is just an invitation to go back to the way the waterfront was before this government came in.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. I name the member for Brisbane.Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That the member for Brisbane be suspended from the service of the House.14:56:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 75Abbott, A.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.64Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Anderson, J.D.Hollis, C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane is suspended for 24 hours under the provisions of standing order 303.The member for Brisbane then left the chamber.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind members that a general warning has been issued. I call the minister in continuation.WI4Mr REITH—Just in conclusion and referring back to the point that Bob Carr was making—and we excuse his triumphalism—the fact of the matter is that Australia does have now much better productivity performance on the waterfront, and that is because this government was strong in its advocacy for those changes. The fact of the matter is that the Labor Party's policy of the abolition of the secondary boycott provisions and the encouragement of industry wide bargaining would return Australia to the bad old days. Not even Bob Carr, a Labor Premier, wants to go back to the bad old days. Even Bob Carr, a Labor Premier, can see the benefits of this reform not just for New South Wales but for the country as a whole. These are good numbers, and they are good numbers because this government stood for reform and still does.2116115:02:0021161Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Can you advise the House when the Department of Finance and Administration advised you of irregularities with your telecard and when they subsequently reported to you on their investigation? If you were notified of the massive telecard debt in August last year, can you explain why it was not until May this year that you notified the Prime Minister—a delay of nine months? Are you aware that the Prime Minister said earlier today that it was his decision to refer the matter to the Attorney-General, who in turn recommended a police investigation? Didn't your nine-month delay in informing the Prime Minister delay this police investigation?21161Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I certainly wrote to the Prime Minister and said that the matter should go to the police.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—When?WI4Mr REITH—That was in May. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne has asked the question.WI4Mr REITH—The matter first came to my notice on 30 August 1999. It came to my notice because a member of the Department of Finance and Administration approached my personal assistant and asked her whether or not I was still using my telecard. She said, `No, he isn't.' She asked me about it, and I had not used my card for some time. I can advise the House that what had transpired was that a person at Telstra was looking at my account—he knew my name, obviously, because of my public duties—and came to the conclusion that there was no way known that a federal minister could make such phone calls. He was referring in particular to the period 1 January 1999 to 30 August when he made contact with us. Just to give you a sense of it, he sent an email to DOFA, which gave me a copy, which said that in the nine-month period to 30 August there were 619 calls to Malaysia, 448 calls from Singapore, 317 calls to Singapore, 389 calls from various mobile phones and 478 calls from various countries back to Australia—2,301 calls in total costing $9,100.45. So my immediate reaction was: obviously I have not been using the card, obviously this card has fallen into the wrong hands, as it were, and there was unauthorised use.On that day I had someone from my office ring DOFA after I had seen that material and had been advised accordingly and we said to DOFA, `The minister has not been using it; obviously there should be a full inquiry by the department.' As we later were told, there were 11,000 calls roughly from approximately 900 locations. I was advised of that in about April. I certainly had a long discussion with DOFA and gave them all the information I had. As a consequence of that which, as I best understand it from DOFA, had sort of brought their investigations to a certain level, I advised the Prime Minister and said that I thought the matter should go to the police. In terms of my knowledge of this prior to 30 August, the fact is that, like many members, I certainly had a telecard. It was issued to me in the early 1990s. I stopped using it when I got a mobile phone, which I think was around 1994, and basically never gave any further consideration to the telecard.5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr Brereton—What about the accounts? WI4Mr REITH—In respect of the accounts, the senators and members handbook in 1996 and some of the other handbooks around that time that I have looked at say specifically, `Costs for telephone charge card use will appear on electorate office telephone accounts as a single line showing the number of calls and total costs.' The fact of the matter is that it was never so provided to me, and I would suggest that it has not been provided to any member in the parliament.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—No, and it was Bolkus who issued that instruction.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Prime Minister, the minister has the call.WI4Mr REITH—To fully answer the question, Mr Speaker, the senators and members handbook made it quite clear and advised members that they would be told of telecard usage. I then asked DOFA whether or not at any time they had provided me with any information about the use of the telecard. Their response was that a minister of the government of the day had made arrangements so that members were not so informed. I can only tell you what I have been told.5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr Brereton—Tell us about the PIN.WI4Mr REITH—In respect of the card—Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—I am quite happy to tell you about the card or give you any other details you want. Members were issued a card, and that card had on it numbers, and in addition to that they were given a PIN.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has been asked the question and is responding to it.WI4Mr REITH—As all members who have used this card would know, you do not need to physically have the card to use the number and the PIN. By some means, which is the subject of police investigation, the details on the card and the PIN have come into the possession of people unknown to me. For the sake of completeness, since I have been asked a question about it, it is a fact that I gave my son the card and the number and the PIN. R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—On what basis?WI4Mr REITH—I am quite happy to answer the question; I am attempting to do so.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister does not respond to interjections. The question has been asked. If interjectors are wondering whether or not they can continue to interject, they will very shortly find out.WI4Mr REITH—He was a student at the time. He was going on an interstate trip. Expecting that I would not necessarily be at home, I said to him, `If you have some particular reason to contact me, this is a means that you can use to do so.' That is basically the only conversation I ever had with him about it. The best we can ascertain is that over five years his usage was to the value of about $950. As soon as I became aware of that, as is the normal case with other people where there has been expenditure outside the entitlement, I repaid the money. Should I have given him the card? No, I do not think I should have. That is a fact. I had not appreciated that he had used it. The irony of it is that, for a lot of the phone calls that he made to home, if he had made them on a reverse charge, this would not have come up. But it has come up. As has been advised, the matter is with the police. That is the proper place for it to be. I hope that they will bring their investigations to a timely conclusion.2116315:10:0021163Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister inform the House how the improvement in waterfront productivity will benefit exporters?21163Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—Farmers certainly have been great supporters of waterfront reform and they have a right to take a share of the pleasure associated with the good news in the latest Bureau of Transport Economics study on waterfront reform. An efficient, effective and dynamic waterfront is absolutely essential if our country is going to achieve its full potential as an export nation. We all have memories of the horrors of the docks—the holding up of farm exports and, indeed, the whole of the trade of our nation, under the previous government. During the life of the previous government, 25 per cent—a quarter—of all industrial disputes on the waterfront in the world were on Australian waterfronts. A quarter of the whole world's supply of industrial disputes was on our waterfront, even though we had only one per cent of trade. Fortunately, that is being turned around. The laughing stock of Australian industrial relations, the embarrassment to our country, is now being turned around with this improved performance in grain handling facilities and with greater reliability of dock space for vessels when they arrive. Our ports are becoming more reliable. Since a significant proportion of our exports, including farm exports, leave in containers, that is very good news for Australian farmers. Around $1 billion worth of our wine exports leave in containers; half a billion dollars worth of rice, $2 billion worth of wool, significant quantities of dairy products and grains, $1½ billion worth of cotton and $2 billion worth of veal and other meat are now able to move more smoothly and more effectively across the waterfront. I would like to congratulate the minister on his achievements in taking on the tough fight on the waterfront. He took them on. Now there is a culture change on our waterfront. We still have some distance to go—there are still more reforms to be undertaken—but there has been a culture change on the waterfront. No longer do people turn up to work for the union or when the union thinks they ought to be there. They now recognise that they have a task to do and they want to do it efficiently and well. So this change certainly represents a significant improvement. It will boost our nation's export competitiveness and give our farmers a chance to trade freely and fairly around the world. 2116315:13:0021163Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. I refer to the minister's letter to all members in relation to Refugee Week in which he claimed that the government had achieved very positive results for refugees. If the government's results have been so positive, how can he explain the fact that his refugee policies have been condemned by Amnesty International, the Refugee Council of Australia, the Ethnic Communities Council, the National Council of Churches, the Catholic Commission of Justice and many other organisations, and also the fact that many of these groups are banding together to mark Refugee Week by organising a big protest rally against the government's policies in Melbourne on the 14th of this month?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell will come to his question. He is advancing an argument.QJ4Dr THEOPHANOUS—Minister, isn't this in fact the saddest Refugee Week in the history of Australia?21163Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Calwell for the question, because it does give me an opportunity to say to the honourable member and to members of this House that Australia has the most creditable record amongst civilised nations for the extent to which it assists refugees. We have nothing to apologise for at all. We are a country, one of seven or eight countries around the world, that has been largely immune from significant refugee outflows and yet, nevertheless, has conducted the largest per capita refugee resettlement program in the world. It has been a mark of our generosity as a nation and as a people that we have continued to do that under governments of both political persuasions over a long period of time. Honourable member interjecting—0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Yes, the honourable member makes the observation that per capita we have been the most generous, but in the context of the extent to which we are now beset by a number of asylum claims in Australia our per capita resettlement program is the second largest in the world.But if you were to add to that—which many people seem to have forgotten—the 4,000 people from Kosovo whom we took on a temporary basis, and the almost 2,000 people we took from East Timor in addition to the 12,000 people who have made asylum claims successfully or been resettled in Australia, there was an effective 50 per cent increase under this government last year in the numbers of people who were assisted. It would have made it the record program under any government over decades. That is not something we hear praised by the member for Calwell. I do not suppose I would expect him to praise it. It is not something that I hear praised by the advocacy groups, who have another agenda. I understand that. But the fact is that not only have we that generous program in place but we have the most developed program of any country in the world for assisting people who are refugees in the resettlement process.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—Rubbish.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The member says, `Rubbish.'10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will ignore the interjections.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Take the time out—QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister is misleading the House. There are 3½ thousand people in detention—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell will resume his seat, or I will be obliged to deal with him.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I know that people will want me to conclude fairly quickly, and there is a lot I would like to say on this particular subject. But we do have the most elaborate and sophisticated program for assisting people who have suffered torture and trauma, people who need to develop language skills and those who have come through the program in an efficacious way.Last week I had the opportunity of attending a meeting of the international community in the form of the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. There is an international crisis in relation to the way in which resources are applied and the demands that are being placed on developed countries like Australia through the asylum system. One ought not to use the fact that amongst some asylum seekers there are refugees to disguise the obscene—and I use that word deliberately—misuse of resources in developed countries like Australia to deal with asylum claims in comparison to the needs of people who are refugees around the world.When honourable members understand, as the international community is starting to understand, that developed countries like Australia spend something like $10 billion a year through sophisticated, elaborate and jurisprudential models for determining asylum claims—that is, as the member for Bowman says, doing justice, and that justice gives people the opportunity to exploit every opportunity to test their claims in Australia—it means that in comparison the 50,000 or so genuine refugees amongst half a million asylum seekers in developed countries use up something like $10 billion worth of resources and yet the UNHCR, to look after the world's 22.7 million refugees and people of concern, has only $1 billion. If the UNHCR had to use our systems to determine who were refugees, it would need something like $440 billion to be able to go through the process.We would be able, if we made savings of 10 per cent in what we spend in dealing with asylum claims, to double what we spend in supporting the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I suspect that, even out of this Minister for Finance and Administration, I might have been able to get a little bit of a dividend if I had been able to deliver those savings. But I make the point: if the international community could save one-tenth, we could double the UNHCR's budget to $2 billion. Instead of having the situation where we spend something like 11c a day on looking after a refugee in Africa, we would be able to put resources into supporting them more effectively, instead of the hundreds of dollars a day we have to spend in assessing, in relation to people who are here for long periods of time, asylum claims in this country. 2116515:21:0021165Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, what action is the government taking to ease the burden of school fees on parents? Is the minister aware of alternative policies forcing school fees up?21165Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Bradfield for his question. The government's school funding policies are designed, as the member for Bradfield suggests, to put downward pressure on school fees. This puts them in dramatic contrast to the policies which the Labor Party pursued when in office. No party in fact has done more to force school fees up than the Labor Party. The fundamental fallacy of the position that is being put by the Labor Party is that, when parents work hard to build up the resources and facilities at a school, support for those parents should fall and that school fees should be forced to rise so that that school becomes less and less accessible. This government believe that, when parents make an effort to invest in education, we should widen access to that school to give more parents the opportunity to educate their children using those facilities.In New South Wales, this aversion to choice in education appears, today, to be driving education policy. We have seen comments from Dr Ken Boston, the highly paid official of the Carr Labor government, who has implemented policies designed to restrict access to non-government schools and ratchet up fees, apparently in an effort to prevent the continuing outflow of students from government schools in that state. I would have to say that I think that Dr Boston's contribution has been little short of scandalously inaccurate and unprecedented for a professional public servant. One can only speculate about his real motives.Under Dr Boston and Mr Aquilina, 20,000 students have left the New South Wales government schools system over the last four years. The New South Wales government is consistently underfunding government schools in that state. In the last budget the Commonwealth government, the Howard government, increased funding for government schools in New South Wales by over four per cent, whereas in the Carr government's budget funding increased by less than two per cent. Some 50 per cent of all the capital expenditure on government schools in New South Wales is coming from the Commonwealth at the moment. In New South Wales the Carr government makes the lowest contribution to building up the capital stock, the buildings, of government schools of any mainland state government. Dr Boston has presided over 18 months of teacher disputes, strikes and 20 lost-teacher days while at the same time pocketing, one would have to say, a lucrative $20,000 bonus from the New South Wales government for his services. That works out at about $1 for every student who has left the government schools sector. Whether it was provided by the New South Wales Treasury or not, I do not know, but we can look to the next bonus with some degree of trepidation.New South Wales has now instituted a review of non-government school funding policies. It has cut money from the non-government schools on a totally unjustifiable ground of the EBA. The Sydney Morning Herald reports this morning:Fear of retaliation by the State Government will stop many private schools reducing their fees ...In other words, the natural tendency of the Commonwealth's policies to push down school fees is being deliberately undermined by the Labor Party government in New South Wales. It is no different in this approach to high school fees than the Labor Party when it was in office federally; all its policies were designed to make schools less accessible. That was the reason why you failed to fund new low fee schools at their appropriate level of need. That is why, since this government abolished the new schools policy, some 113 new low fee schools have opened, which would never have opened under your policy. This government believes in school choice. We believe that people are entitled to build up the resources of schools and that they should not be punished for that. This government approach is to encourage parent choice. The policies of the Labor Party are designed to undermine parent choice and to drive up the fees facing all parents at all schools.2116615:26:0021166Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question again is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, and I refer to his previous answer. On what basis and on what authority did you provide your son with your telecard and PIN? Since becoming aware of the fact that your card was being misused, what inquiries have you made to determine how the telecard and PIN came to be more widely abused?21166Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—As to its wider usage, that is entirely a matter for the police. I have had a long discussion with the police. My son who lives and works in London was out here during the middle of the year. We made arrangements for him to meet with the police, and he gave them all the information that he has. In particular, in answer to the question whether or not he had given the details to anybody, he has strongly denied that. But that and all matters are entirely matters for the police, and that is where it rests.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPWI4Mr REITH—What was the first part, sorry?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—What authority did you give to your son?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am extending a good deal of licence in this, but the minister may respond.WI4Mr REITH—Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I have said to the House, I did give the card to my son, and I should not have done so. There is a Remuneration Tribunal determination which says that you must only use the card personally, and I was in breach of that. I must say, though, that, as a member of the federal parliament and not often at home, I gave it to him because I thought that if he needed to contact me—Government member interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—He could ring home at any time but, if I was in a hotel somewhere else and he was stuck somewhere and he wanted to contact his father, I thought he could do so.5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr Brereton—So much for the rules!WI4Mr REITH—I am sorry, but that is the basis upon which I gave it to him. It is in breach of the tribunal, and I have said that quite openly to the PM. As soon as I knew about the matter, obviously I repaid the amounts. I should say also, as members know, that other people have found themselves in the situation where they have been outside of the entitlement and, where the matter has been brought to their attention, they have repaid those moneys. As I also said earlier, I had no means of knowing that the card was actually being used.2116615:29:0021166Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Could the minister outline to the House the benefits flowing to job seekers and to the community in my electorate of Parramatta from the government's Work for the Dole program? What obstacles exist to extending those benefits more widely throughout my electorate?21166Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—I thank the member for Parramatta for his question. I note that unemployment in the Parramatta region peaked at no less than 20.7 per cent in February 1993, when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister for Employment, Education and Training—a job which he described at the time as a `poison chalice'. Unemployment in Parramatta was 13 per cent in March 1996. I am sure all members of the House will be delighted to know that unemployment in Parramatta is now just 3.4 per cent thanks to the policies of the Howard government, and those policies of course include Work for the Dole. Since November 1997, there have been 14 Work for the Dole projects in Parramatta, which have given nearly 500 job seekers valuable work experience in things like environmental restoration, working with community groups and boosting local facilities. I have just become aware of a new Work for the Dole proposal in Parramatta to restore 42 hectares of degraded bushland which is part of the Vineyard Creek catchment. This proposal has the support of the local catchment committee. It has the support of nearby Macquarie Boys Technology High School. It has the support of local community work coordinators. The only group which does not support this proposal is Parramatta City Council under the leadership of the Left faction Labor Lord Mayor. In fact, what we are seeing here is a bit of a family feud inside Labor's ruling class. You have the member for Batman saying that community groups should participate in Work for the Dole and you have his brother, the member for Reid, who has vetoed participation by his factional acolytes on Parramatta City Council. There is hope for the Vineyard Creek project and for other community initiatives in Parramatta. The Labor Lord Mayor has been replaced, so I now call on Parramatta City Council to participate in Work for the Dole and give Parramatta job seekers a fair go.2116715:32:0021167Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, given the delay in the start of accreditation of nursing homes for nine months, isn't it a fact that the standards agency is using uncertified quality assessors in order to meet the 1 January 2001 deadline? Minister, isn't the use of uncertified assessors a clear breach of the Aged Care Act? How many uncertified assessors have been used in accrediting nursing homes? Minister, hasn't the use of uncertified quality assessors jeopardised the accreditation of the facilities concerned? Minister, who authorised the use of uncertified quality assessors?21167Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—The chief executive of the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency, Mr Tim Burns, wrote to me and informed me that there were three assessors who had done their course, had passed their course and had not been registered by the registration agency. The letter that he wrote to me said that a decision was made still to use those three assessors, and nine accreditation audits took place in the course of a week. Those facilities have been contacted, fresh audits have been arranged and Mr Burns is personally apologising to each of the facilities for the inconvenience caused. It was quite clear that the decision that was taken by the agency to allow those audits to go ahead when the registration of those assessors had not taken place, despite the fact that they had completed their courses, was the wrong decision for the agency to have made. Hence, the reaccreditation audits will take place.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice211672116715:34:0021167Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Mr Speaker, earlier in question time, I tabled the document `Handle with Care', an ACTU publication acknowledging the work of the Remuneration Planning Corporation. I was previously asked on 6 September whether I had met with the Remuneration Planning Corporation during 1999. I think I was asked that by the member for Lowe, and I tabled with the document `Handle with Care' a memorandum of 7 September from the Remuneration Planning Corporation saying that neither I nor the Assistant Treasurer or our staff had met with them during 1999 or 2000.Questions to the Speaker211672116715:35:0021167Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, in accordance with standing order 150, I ask that you write to the Treasurer concerning question on notice No. 955 asking whether he kept his promise to not introduce new taxes or increase existing taxes—a question he has now been struggling to answer for more than a year.21168SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter under standing order 150. Personal Explanations2116815:36:0021168Mr TANNER,MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?YU5Mr TANNER,MPMr TANNER—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.YU5Mr TANNER,MPMr TANNER—During question time, the Minister for Finance and Administration stated a couple of things with respect to me, and the Treasurer effectively reiterated them. Firstly, the Minister for Finance and Administration stated that in my book last year I proposed the further privatisation of Telstra. This is absolutely untrue. I proposed a restructure—no reduction of public ownership. Secondly, he stated that I did not support Labor policy with respect to Telstra ownership. That is totally untrue. I fully support Labor policy with respect to the ownership of Telstra.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Mr Speaker, I thought the member said that he was giving a personal explanation about something that I had said.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind members of their status in the House today. The Treasurer has the call.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—I did not hear him explain where he had been misrepresented by me.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the Treasurer have a point of order?CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—I do, Mr Speaker. He sought leave to make a personal explanation on the grounds that he had been misrepresented by me. I did not hear him state where he had been misrepresented by me.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer may not have heard, but the member for Melbourne indicated that, during question time today, he had been misrepresented in one form or another.15:37:0021168Ms KERNOT,MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?XW4Ms KERNOT,MPMs KERNOT—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.XW4Ms KERNOT,MPMs KERNOT—In an answer to a question without notice today, the Treasurer imputed that I questioned the commitment of the Australian Labor Party to protect Telstra from further privatisation. This is not the case. Labor's policy against further privatisation is clear and was known to me when I joined the Labor Party. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the way to protect this—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson has indicated where she has been misrepresented.15:38:0021168Dr NELSON,MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?RW5Dr NELSON,MPDr NELSON—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.RW5Dr NELSON,MPDr NELSON—In a question to the Treasurer, the member for Rankin suggested that a report of which I was the principal author had recommended wholesale tax abuse. The intellectual bankruptcy of the member for Rankin is reflected—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Bradfield will resume his seat.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: misrepresentations have to be personal. They cannot relate to collective misrepresentations or, else, we could all speak about misrepresentations about things that have been said about opposition policy. But you do not allow that and nor do the standing orders, nor is the member for Bradfield allowed to make a personal explanation under these terms.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business has made his point of order. The chair has endeavoured—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne has a very short memory for someone of his intellectual capacity. The Manager of Opposition Business has raised a point of order about personal explanations. Consistent with my predecessors, I have endeavoured to ensure that people raising matters of personal misrepresentation indicated where they had been misrepresented. I will look again at the Hansard to ensure that I have been consistent today. What I have heard the member for Bradfield comment on to date is the way in which a report of which he was the chair had been misrepresented rather than a way in which he had personally been misrepresented. CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Mr Speaker, when you do look at it, I ask you to satisfy yourself as to whether each of the personal explanations which we have just taken identified a so-called misrepresentation and a personal one or whether, in fact, they amounted simply to argument and—in one case—a dispute about words of the member for Dickson herself which were merely quoted back in question time.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will follow this through with Hansard, and I am more than happy to investigate other matters of personal explanation to ensure not only that I have been consistent but that my rulings have been consistent with those of my predecessors. I will happily report to the Treasurer.Documents2116921169Reith, 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:Health Insurance Commission Annual Report 1999-2000.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Committees21169211692116915:42:0021169SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I present the Speaker's response to the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure entitled It's your House: community involvement in the procedures and practices of the House of Representatives and its committees.Matters of Public Importance211692116910000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The undermining by the government of public confidence in needs-based funding for non-government schools and fair funding for government schools.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—15:43:0021169Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, it would be impossible for me to convey to you how deeply I resent the way in which this government has handled the issue of resources to private schooling in this country. This government has undermined a fundamental principle, an educational and equity principle, put in place by the Australian Labor Party when we legislated for the first time funding directly to schools on a per capita student basis back in the mid-1970s under Gough Whitlam as Prime Minister and my father as minister for education.The Prime Minister likes to point out that, during the 1960s, the Menzies government put forward propositions for science labs in schools. As important as those science labs are, they were bagatelles in the expense of conducting education in the private sector. They were there for Menzies not so much to do something serious about the needs or the equity problems associated with the then some 25 per cent of Australians who sent their kids to private schools but to embarrass the Labor Party politically.It took the Labor Party's coming to office, with its commitment to education and its commitment to access and equity opportunities, to actually put in place direct funding—real choice for working-class Australians on whether or not they would find themselves in private schools. It was us; we did it. And you opposed it. The Liberal Party opposed the Labor Party's position. They opposed it in the Senate. They opposed it in the House. Fraser, the Liberal Party education spokesperson, sat across the table from my father and said that we would not get our bill and we would not get assistance on this basis with private schools. What was their position? Their position was that, whether you went to Geelong Grammar or Our Lady of Lourdes School, you should get exactly the same per capita funding basis. The Prime Minister stands in here and prances about, lecturing us on needs based funding, whilst he moves the system decisively in the direction that they wanted in the mid-1970s, which was to treat a child who goes to a school with the massive resources of Geelong Grammar the same as a kid who goes to school with the utterly inadequate resources of the average Catholic parochial school—or, for that matter, the average parochial school, be they associated with a Catholic religion or any other—in this country. That was their position then, and a decisive shift is taking place now in the same direction.There is an interesting debating point being made by George Bush in the American presidential campaign, and I intend from this point until the day of the next election to shamelessly plagiarise it. Bush has—I think in all probability inaccurately—characterised the situation in the United States as an education recession. He said the Americans were experiencing an education recession. They may or may not be, but there is no doubt about it here. There is an education recession in this country. The Commonwealth public commitment to education is falling, and we are the only nation in the industrialised world where that is happening.It is possible that that position might actually come back into equilibrium over the next four years. Why? Because of the loot being ladled out to the category 1 schools. That is not an education decision but a class decision. At least part of decent education policy has to be about access and opportunity for those who cannot necessarily afford it from within their own means, and choice and freedom of conscience is closely bound up in all of that. Proper needs based funding is essential to ensure that that actually takes place. That is an education principle. Shifting resources into schools with the dimensions of Geelong Grammar and ripping it out of the state system on the way through is not an educational principle but a class principle.I have nothing against parents who send their children to the King's Schools and the Geelong Grammars—nothing at all. They love their kids just as much as anyone who sends their kids to public schools, or to parochial schools, or to Christian schools, or to Muslim schools, or to Greek schools, or to Jewish schools—all of those schools that got funding when the Labor Party was an office and did not get a brass razoo from Liberal governments. They care just as much for their children as the parents of the kids that go there, but they have the resources to care even more. They have the resources to pay $11,000 a year fees, $12,000 a year fees. The minister got up and said one of these schools has in fact lowered the fees on the basis of what the minister has done—lowered them from $11,000 a year to $10,800 a year. The working class will be marching through the portals of that school in droves on the basis of that reduction—there is no doubt about that at all! The point about all of that of course is—BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr Kemp—They will be joining the children of the Labor leadership, will they?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What are you doing bringing family into it? You are a grub.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The minister and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease cross-talk.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—that they actually have the resources. We did say that it is not unreasonable for some small contribution to be made to the schools where the parents of those kids pay 11 grand a year. We said that it was reasonable for some small amount to be paid in. We thought: they are paying taxes; that ought to be done. Every kid was entitled to some degree of public subvention. But that act of generosity that produced a level of funding—which the Prime Minister at the start of this debate had approved but has now abandoned—has been taken to the nth degree by this government. The term `category 1 school' needs some explanation here in this chamber. I thought I might take a Western Australian example, just so at least those people in my home state can understand exactly who is getting these resources. If you start up Stirling Highway from Fremantle you will see on your right Methodist Ladies College and Christ Church Grammar School—beautiful buildings, beautiful fields. They are not category 1 schools. Then you continue onto the South Perth freeway into South Perth and you will see Wesley College and in the neighbouring suburb of Kensington its sister college, Penrhos. You will see magnificent arts resources, particularly in Penrhos, magnificent playing fields, but they are not category 1 schools. You can then go further down the highway to Salter Point, to Aquinas, and you can see magnificent playing fields in a great school, but it is not category 1. Then you can turn back up the Great Eastern Highway and head out through historic Guildford and you will see magnificent historical buildings, beautiful playing fields on the banks of a river, but it is not a category 1 school. If they are not category 1 schools, what are?What we find here is one of those category 1 schools—Geelong Grammar—under this new government formula, not in the top 50-odd schools in this country. I strongly suspect that they would deny they are outside the top 10—and, if you actually listened to one or two of the graduates of Geelong Grammar, they would deny that they are below the top one. On this government's formula, Geelong Grammar is at 217. Why is it? It is for this reason, I say to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, who is at the table—and it does not matter whether the ERI formula needed to be changed or not; anything that is in place for a period of time probably needs reform. But you supported that, right through the 1980s and early nineties. It is because your formula takes no account of the fees paid; $11,000 is irrelevant in your formula. It takes no account of the facilities which are there, facilities such as those at Geelong College: two magnificent ovals, an all-weather synthetic hockey field and tennis, netball, basketball and squash courts. In addition, there is the new recreation centre, featuring a 25-metre indoor swimming pool, with eight lanes for FINA standards, a separate diving pool, a fully equipped gymnasium with a weights room and an aerobic studio. All this was paid for, no doubt, by generous donations. Again, no account was taken of that in your funding formula. No account was taken of any endowment or private income associated with that school. None of that features in the formula in any way whatsoever. That is why the very wealthiest schools in this country are now going from a reasonable contribution, given the fact that their parents pay taxes, of about 13 per cent of average government school costs up to about 40 per cent of government school costs now. All those things are eliminated from the formula. They say that they are supported by all in the private sector. I would encourage everybody in the private sector to support whatever government is in—your job is to get on with education. Take what you get and get on with that. Do not worry about the politics; leave it to the politicians. But no person has been more vehemently verballed in this place than has the Deputy Chair of the National Catholic Education Commission, Father Tom Doyle. When Father Tom Doyle was appearing before the Senate committee—remember that he said `We accept the formula of the government' in one of the answers that the Prime Minister gave—he said:We would still maintain that the SES model in itself is not sufficient and that it needs modification ... ... ... ...That is where we talk about SES plus things like resource indicators—I ask myself whether it was from the old education resource index—and resource availabilities. The pure SES model does not allow for that anomaly.We are now seeing how much that anomaly is, because when Tom Doyle was speaking I bet he did not know at that time that the massive amount of funding money that was going in to King's School and the other schools was going in so disproportionately. We have heard of those enormous amounts going in—up to $2,000 extra per pupil for Geelong College—when the Tyndale Christian School at Blacktown got an extra $144; Our Lady of Mercy College, a low fee Catholic school in Parramatta, had no increase whatsoever; Our Lady of Lebanon High School, a low fee Maronite school in nearby Harris Park, where the working class are going, got $163 per pupil; and the St George College in Adelaide got an extra $253, one-eighth of that received by schools like Geelong Grammar. What has been happening here is a massive undermining of the needs based principle, which is the only educational principle on which this distribution of funds ought to be made. It is a deliberate undermining of the principle—an undermining that has been concealed as this minister resisted every effort, until he could do so no longer, to tease out from him what exactly it was he was doing for the wealthiest private schools in this country. The Catholic system happens to cover 70 per cent of the young people in private schools here. You say they accept your system: the Catholic school system is out of it. They do not distribute funds and resources—and you have agreed to it—on the basis of your SES model, which they believe is deeply flawed and would result in injustices inside their system if they were to apply it. But you apply it to the other 30 per cent. They have opted out and made a sacrifice to do so—70 per cent of the kids in private schools—but you apply it elsewhere and to the detriment of the public school system and the education system overall. Your policy, Minister, is based on class, not on education. It is based on making up for your bitterness at having lost the battle in the middle of the seventies on the issue of a needs based principle. You have undermined it, you have wasted positively millions of education dollars in doing so, and we are going to pursue you right down to the next election on it. (Time expired)15:58:0021172Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—We can see why the Leader of the Opposition has no credibility in the education debate from that pathetic address. Here we have seen the Leader of the Opposition desperately defending a system which has been abandoned by everyone who was subject to it in the non-government sector. It is very sad to hear the Leader of the Opposition trying to explain category 1 when category 1 has got three months to go and when everyone recognises that category 1 is part of a totally misleading and corrupt system, because that system has been manipulated by Labor again and again over the years. This matter of public importance highlights the absolute hypocrisy of the Labor Party. Labor's view of schooling has been to continue to drive up school fees wherever parents make a contribution. The Leader of the Opposition says he cares about the parents at all schools. He only cares until they show that they are prepared to make an effort to build up the resources of those schools, and then, under his funding system, once they have equipped their school, he comes in and slashes their funding. And what do they do? They are forced to put up fees, to narrow access to their school.That is the way Labor's system worked for 15 years, and it is a sad commentary on the Leader of the Opposition that he stands up in this House and attempts to defend a system which is narrowing access to well resourced schools in the private sector. Let me say it did not exclude everybody from access, because people like Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, Kim Beazley, Simon Crean and Graham Richardson all accessed those schools—even though Labor's policy was pushing up fees. Our policy gives many more parents and families the chance to enjoy the opportunities which the Labor leadership claimed for themselves. Our policy is designed to provide a downward pressure on fees at schools which are well resourced.The Leader of the Opposition has a very bad record in education. When he was Minister for Education 30 per cent of young people could not read and write properly, and he did nothing about it. When he attempted to devise an education policy at the last election it was so bad that his shadow minister for education resigned and still sits on the back bench. He has no grasp of these issues. If we pursue the logic of what he is saying—that somehow or other we should not be taking into account the needs of families and parents but we should be taking into account the grounds, buildings, gymnasium and swimming pool to decide who is going to get access to those schools—the inevitable consequence of his policy is going to be to narrow access. If ever you want to see a class based education policy, that is it. It means that well resourced schools become the privilege of the rich and the Labor leadership, and everybody else is shut out. Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition what he thinks is fair funding for this school; let me just give the Leader of the Opposition an example of a school with significant resources. It is a school with its own purpose-built drama complex, complete with stage, curtains, sound and lighting facilities, and it has a college camp site set on 20 acres of land at Lake Eppalock to provide students with the privilege of an annual camp at the modern ski lodge type facility; two 25-seat minibuses to facilitate the school's extensive camping and sports programs; a modern, well-equipped gymnasium which caters for a wide range of both winter and summer sports, including full-sized basketball and netball courts, three volleyball courts, indoor soccer and cricket, as well as maintained gymnastics equipment; a 20-metre indoor heated pool which allows students to undertake swimming as a subject during PE and sports sessions and is also available to students at lunchtime; and four classrooms full of computers, as well as 12 computers in the library available to students. What is a fair funding level for a school with resources like that? Do you think a school like that sounds like a category 1 school that should be funded at 13.7 per cent of the average government school cost?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—It sounds more like Aquinas.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—More like Aquinas. Let us just see how serious the opposition are about taking resources into account. That school will be funded at 100 per cent of the average cost of educating a child at a government school. In 2004 the parents at that school could receive an estimated $8,172 for every secondary school student compared with the King's School in that year which will receive only $2,500 per student—that is $8,172 versus $2,500. Why is that? Because this school is an example of a well resourced government school. Are the opposition suggesting that this government school should receive—MG4Lee, Michael, MPBT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—They do not like this. Are we saying that the resources of this school should affect the funding for that school? Are we saying that somehow or other this school should be accessed only by the wealthy, or should everyone have access to this school? Of course our view is that there should be the widest possible access. What is this school? Is this school an exceptional school? Is it Melbourne High School? Is it North Sydney Boys High? Probably the member for Calwell might recognise it if he were in the House because this school is Erinbank Secondary College in Broadmeadows in Melbourne's north-west. This is a government school, funded under government schooling policies, which provides outstanding resources to its students.But the Leader of the Opposition applies a double standard. In the public sector resources have no impact but, if parents build those facilities, that school should be solely for the rich—we should not provide support to those parents. They pay taxes, but he does not even grasp the argument because he is totally out of his depth in this area. He thought it was a private school; he thought it was Aquinas. He did not even recognise it as a government school. That is because an accurate description of the government's policy has never passed his lips. He uses this rhetoric: `This is a policy which rips resources out of government schools.'Well, what does it do for government schools? Over the next four years this policy provides government schools with an extra $1.4 billion. This year government schools are receiving $402 million more than they received when Labor was in office. Government school funding has gone up 26 per cent under this government. This is a policy that he represents as ripping money out of government schools. This is a man who is living in fantasy land. He seems to spend his evenings sipping chardonnay with the officials of the Australian Education Union who feed him these lines and he comes into the House trying to sell these lines. For heaven's sake, get your staff to do an analysis of what the government's policy is actually about. Try to get some logic into what you are saying about school funding policy. The irony is that the Leader of the Opposition gets up in this chamber and says that our funding system is unfair, when everyone who is subject to it says that it is fair and when they are urging the opposition to pass this bill.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—No, they don't!BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—I do not know who advises the Leader of the Opposition, but everything he says is so inaccurate that you cannot place any weight on it. Let us go straight to the National Catholic Education Commission. The Leader of the Opposition has just interjected and said that they do not support the government's legislation. The first sentence of the press release issued by the National Catholic Education Commission on the government's bill is the following:The Senate should pass the State Grants Bill 2000 intact.`Intact.' Everyone who is subject to the government's funding system says this. The Reverend Tom Doyle said:... a very good and equitable package ... The new system is fair, open to scrutiny, yet doesn't drain resources away from government schools. Father Doyle has read the government's legislation and he is accurate where the Leader of the Opposition is not. He says that it: ... doesn't drain resources away from government schools. In a caring and democratic Australia, it is vital that we recognise everyone's right to choice.The right of choice to well resourced schools is not something that is the sole possession of leaders and senior members of the Labor Party—it is the right of other Australians as well, and this bill will give more Australians access to the schools which the Labor Party leadership likes to use for itself. Some extraordinary statements—outrageous statements—have been made by Dr Ken Boston, the senior official of the government school system in New South Wales. Dr Boston has presided over, with the Carr government, the most unsuccessful education policy in Australia. If you measure the success of the education policy of those who run the government schools by the attitude of parents, then there is no state system in Australia which has a greater vote of no confidence against it than the New South Wales government system, with 20,000 students leaving that system in the last four years. The reasons for this are several. Dr Boston has failed to persuade the Carr government to invest properly in building up the school buildings and the equipment of government schools in New South Wales. There is no state government on mainland Australia that relies so heavily on the Commonwealth government for the money it puts into building up government schools. Government schools in New South Wales have received increases over the last four years of some $121 million from the Commonwealth and yet Dr Boston, supposedly a responsible school official, has written that the Commonwealth government is cutting funding to government schools in New South Wales. That is totally false, and it shows that when you get a fair, objective, non-political basis for funding schools according to the needs of students it goes very deeply to the heart of Labor's left wing ideology.In the end, they hate parent choice. All that Labor has ever come up with to try to defend public schooling in this country it to stop parents, particularly low income parents, choosing the school that they want for their children. They have not bothered about raising literacy standards, they do not worry about proper reporting to parents, they do not worry about broadening the senior curriculum with proper vocational courses. All they say is, `We'll protect you union officials in the government school sector by stopping people leaving the sector. We'll shut the doors; we'll stop new schools from being properly funded at their level of need. We won't fund the Catholic parish schools at their level of need. We won't have an objective system.' PE4Beazley, Kim, MPBT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—Their fair system, as he said, funded Loreto Kirribilli at 40 per cent of the cost of educating a child at a government school. It gets $2 million more under their system than it gets from us, and yet they say that our system is unfair. This is the most important and generous funding legislation for Australian schools that any federal government has ever brought down. It is a massive investment in the future of young Australians. (Time expired)16:13:0021175Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—I would like to focus on four aspects of this debate: the historic precedents for advantaging the already privileged, real choice, real equity and the real response of the non-government sector. History and precedence have lessons for this minister and this corrupt oligarchy that calls itself the Howard government. This Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has just given another truth-defying exposition on advantaging the already privileged at the cost of the disadvantaged in the public sector. This minister for education—this minister for doublespeak in true Orwellian terms, the dodgy brother of the Australian parliament—is, as you would expect, an entirely predictable fellow. His strategy is truth reversal. Simply state an untruth and repeat it over and over again.A letter in the Australian newspaper today said that David Kemp is to statistics what George Bush is to pronunciation—got it in one, Andrew Cave of Queensland. However, as Lewis Lapham pointed out in his essay `Waiting for the barbarians,' oligarchies like the Howard government have, throughout history, changed from ideals of virtue and fairness to concentration on advantaging the already privileged. There is nothing new in this minister, it has happened throughout history and it is happening now.Sooner or later—Lapham writes—men become pigs ... Aristotle likened the character change to that of `the prosperous fool', a man or class of men—like the frontbench of the government, half of whom went to these category 1 schools—so bewildered by the faith in money that they imagine there is nothing it cannot buy. Once the oligarchy has been made stupid with insolence and greed it is only a matter of time ...But more of that later. Aristotle of course derived his understanding of politics from his studies of Greek society in the fourth and fifth centuries BC, which encompassed the rise and fall of the Periclean aristocracy. As Lapham explains, the oligarchy at the time gave more and more to the already privileged—the `prosperous fools'—of Athens. The oligarchy that ruled Athens divided the city into rich and poor and, as a consequence, was unable to withstand the barbarians from the mountains of Macedon. As an aside, Aristotle mentions a faction of especially reactionary oligarchs who took a vow of selfishness by the swearing of a solemn oath:I will be an adversary of the people—that is, the Commonwealth—and in the council I will do it all the evil I can.Isn't that just you, Minister? A quote from thousands of years ago captures you and your government to a tee. Include the Prime Minister and the cabinet and what an evil little oligarchy we have. And of course there are plenty of other historical precedents, for instance, Roman emperor Honorius on 10 August in the year 410. Do you remember him, when King Alaric and 100,000 Visigoths came down with their bronzed battering rams to the walls of Rome? The Catholic popes of the late Renaissance, Louis XVI of France, Tsar Nicholas of tsarist Russia, Fritz von Papen in the then soon to be Nazi Germany: there is nothing original in this, Minister. In four short years you have transformed yourself: you have gone from the election platform of governing for all Australians—which you went to the people on in 1996—to openly supporting the privileged to the detriment of the polis, the public.This minister and this Prime Minister seem extremely keen on reversing the accepted concepts of choice and equity. Perhaps their arguments might have a smidgin of credibility if in fact choice and equity were a viable choice in an increasing rather than a decreasing number of Australian families. In this so-called strong Australian economy we are fast approaching the rich/poor divide noted in the failed oligarchies of the past. On top of seven per cent unemployed we have seven per cent underemployed, seven per cent hidden unemployed, seven per cent in full-time work but who are living in poverty and 22 per cent of our work force casually and precariously employed. That adds up to 50 per cent of the available work force. Are $11,000 fees a choice for these families? I think not. This minister must live in a cocooned world, oblivious to what is happening around him. Like the United States, we are increasing the number of low skill and low productivity jobs. What is revealed about choice in the United States is mirrored in this country. Over the last 20 years the number of people earning high wages has fallen from 28 per cent to 21 per cent; the number of people earning middle ranging wages—those aspirational voters—has fallen from 37 per cent to 16 per cent; and the number of those on low wages has grown from 35 per cent to 63 per cent. This information is from Dr Linda Barrington, a labour economist, of the Conference Board. Extending choice, Minister? Codswallop! Bulldust! Just plain and ordinary misrepresentation of the truth. That is your game.And what about equity for families whose children have debilitating conditions like cerebral palsy, who require attention for 24 hours a day? What about equity for families of children whose behaviour is so extreme and dysfunctional that it wrecks relationships and physically destroys homes? What about equity for families of children who are at risk of committing suicide? What about equity for families who are at risk of severe substance abuse? What about equity for children who are at risk of being physically, sexually and emotionally abused? And what about equity for children who go to school hungry, come home hungry and who are inadequately fed, clothed and housed? Can't you see that in your own state? You see it in the main streets of Melbourne. Minister, is the giving of millions of dollars to the most privileged people in the country, whilst ignoring your fellow Australian families in desperate need your definition of equity? The intent of this minister is evil.This minister gets up in this chamber and states that his model of SES funding for the non-government school has the overwhelming support of the private school community—that is what you said just a while ago. But it ain't necessarily so. Jeff Kennett used to say that about business in Victoria until they were sick of his high-handed, selective, dictatorial exclusions, and they worked to remove him much sooner than any pundit ever predicted. I come from South Australia where there has generally been a productive relationship between public and private schools; it has been a good relationship. That is doomed by the actions of this government—and they are the words of the non-government sector. I have had many principals write to me supporting the passage of the states grants bill and, as you would expect, parroting your words from second reading speeches—with one exception, and I will come to him later. I decided to ring them instead of writing because, as a former school principal, I know many of these people. I have worked with them; I have known some of these people for over 30 years. All but two took my call. They begged me not to name them or their schools, except one. I agreed I would never do it, but nevertheless I wrote down pertinent parts of the discussions, of the phone calls. Without exception none—not one—would defend or support the outlandish funding for the elite schools. Not one. All agreed—they are not stupid—that it was just a tricky transfer from public school funding via the enrolment benchmark adjustment. That is not what you are telling this parliament, Minister. And what else did they say? They said: `Pushing the envelope too far'; `I fear the inevitable backlash which unfortunately for us will have just cause'; `Advantaging non-government schools with funds from a discredited financial arrangement like the EBA and then denying it does not come from public schools is indefensible'; `I am very comfortable'—in my school—`financially. I am very, uncomfortable morally'; `My parent body would sack me if they knew my real views'; `Dr Kemp presents arguments that are a real threat to Australian democracy as we know it'; `Rewarding the elite schools at the obvious expense of public education will fool no-one'; `It encourages all to play a game. Unfortunately some non-government schools are better equipped to play the game than others'; `To advantage the privileged against the needy is to deny God's teachings'; `The Bible tells us we cannot worship God and money at the same time'; `This funding regime will push the more difficult to educate children'—the real test of competent teachers—`to poorer and less resourced schools'. And we should all worry about that. And, finally, `There is no encouragement at all for schools to have low fees'. That is not an overwhelming endorsement, Minister. There was one principal who did not want his comments on the record, and I seek leave to table his comments without identifying his name and his school. Leave not granted.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD—Okay, I will read it. It states:The rich-poor divide. There is no encouragement for schools to have low fees at all; only for the easier to educate from poor areas. There is indeed incentive for schools to charge as much as they can from the community they serve, highlighting the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. By charging more, their government funding is not affected. When silly little oligarchies like this minister and this government redefine the virtues of equity and choice as evil intent, they will suffer the same fate as every other miserable oligarchy throughout the world. Goodnight, Minister. (Time expired)16:23:0021177Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I am pleased to rise on this MPI this afternoon and I hope that my comments will be more relevant to the parents and students of the Australian community than those of the previous speaker, the member for Port Adelaide. I am very angry about the attack the opposition have waged on public schools and non-government schools in Australia. They are the ones who are divisive. They are the ones who are undermining the confidence in public schools throughout Australia. They have embarked on a campaign of misinformation, untruths and hypocrisy in these arguments. When I came into this parliament nearly five years ago, I expected that debate would be well researched, based on factual information and based on what people truly believed when they came into this parliament. But this debate that the opposition have waged on education is nothing about those principles; they have no principles. They have used misinformation and untruths throughout. The facts are that the Commonwealth government is spending more on government schools than ever before—these are facts—that Commonwealth spending on government schools will rise by 21 per cent over the next four years, and that this year the Commonwealth government is spending $402 million more on government schools than in 1996, an increase of 26 per cent. Yet you hear the opposition saying that we are ripping money out of the government schools. All those comments are doing is undermining the confidence of parents and teachers in government schools. The school system in Australia is a good system. All that the opposition comments do is undermine the confidence in government schools. They also undermine the confidence the teachers have in government schools. Government schools are privileged to have many hardworking and dedicated teachers, but they never get any support from the likes of the Labor opposition.One of the things which is dishonest in the opposition's argument is when they compare dollar figures about extra funding that goes into government schools and non-government schools. It is one of the things that the shadow minister often likes to do—that is, to compare dollar figures—and the Prime Minister picked him up on it yesterday, saying it was a totally dishonest argument. You must remember that state governments are the main funders of government schools; it is their responsibility. The state governments fund 85 per cent of the cost of running government schools. If we have a problem with government schools, as we do in many areas of New South Wales, we should be talking to and working with the state governments and finding out what the problems are. The Labor opposition should be asking the state governments, particularly in New South Wales, what they are doing to resource government schools. There is a problem in many areas of New South Wales with resources for government schools, but it is not for lack of funding from the Commonwealth government. What is the New South Wales government doing to resource government schools? That is a question I never hear from the Labor opposition in the federal parliament. The two million government school students in this country are supported by an annual budget of combined Commonwealth-state government money of around $13.4 billion. The one million non-government students are supported by public funding of about $3.7 billion. We have two well-funded and well-resourced systems of education in Australia, and that is something the Labor opposition should be trying to support. They should be looking at ways to encourage the system that has worked well for Australia, not trying to divide the community and run down particularly government schools. I mentioned the New South Wales state government. They certainly have not answered any of the questions we have put forward about resourcing and why the money that the Commonwealth is providing is not going to the government schools in New South Wales. There are many schools in my electorate that are desperately under resourced, and it is not for lack of funding from the Commonwealth government. We cannot get answers out of the New South Wales government.I want to make some comments, as the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs did earlier, about this outrageous article in the Sydney Morning Herald of Tuesday, 10 October written by Dr Ken Boston, who is a public servant and Director-General of Education and Training in New South Wales. He should be the one asking questions of the New South Wales government about where the funding is for New South Wales schools. I understand that he has distributed this article to all the schools in New South Wales and asked the teachers and headmasters to circulate it. The article itself is totally untrue. Dr Ken Boston wrote: Under the EBA, the Commonwealth reduces funding for government schools as the proportion of enrolments in non-government schools increases. NSW has already lost $21 million as a result ...This is a total untruth coming from the Director-General of Education and Training in New South Wales. He is prepared to go out and continue to produce these untruths about money coming from state schools and being put into private schools. He should be asking questions of the New South Wales government. There is a lot of support in the community for this new proposal. I quote from Heather and David McAlpine from Victoria:As a family already electing to educate our children in an Independent School, we note with interest the imminent presentation to the Senate of the proposed SES education funding legislation. We consider the successful passage of this proposed legislation as absolutely essential in order to retain at least some choice in education for families in regional Australia.That is just one quote from the quotes of many people who support the passage of this legislation. The Labor Party have waged an outrageous campaign of misinformation, trying to divide the community with class warfare. The Labor Party do not seem to want to give parents the choice of how they might give their children what they perceive as the best education, whether that be in a government school or a non-government school. The ultimate hypocrisy of the Labor Party argument on this issue is that at the end of the day I understand they are going to support this legislation. So they run this argument of misinformation throughout the community, they try to stir up concern and distrust in the government system throughout the community, all for what they believe is short-term political gain, yet they are going to support this legislation. We have sat here day in and day out over the last couple of weeks and listened to them. They get up here with their indignation about class warfare, about how they believe government schools are not being correctly funded, using facts and figures that really are not facts and figures—they are just figments of their imagination—twisting figures around so they can build up this so-called case. But they have no basis for the case they are mounting. At the end of the day, it just shows their hypocrisy. I believe that Australia is in one of the strongest positions it has been in for many generations, and it has only been as a result of the Howard coalition government. The reason we are in such a strong position is the reforms and policies we have put forward. The Labor opposition have never supported our reforms and our policies. But have they put up alternative policies? Have they put up a different direction? Have they looked at the facts? No, we have always had negative carping and harping about blocking what we are trying to do which is right for this country. In this debate about education they have lost the plot: they are not concerned about parents and children. They are not concerned about the quality of education in this country. The quality of education in this country is the future of this country. Instead of being divisive about it, instead of trying to wage a class warfare, they should be out there trying to support what is the best policy to provide a good system of education in this country, the best policy that can deliver the education that is the future of this country for our children, the best policy that will allow the parents of this country to make a choice about how they want their children to be educated to get the best possible education so that this country can go forward and continue to be the strong country that it is, and the best policy that will give the children of this country the best education that they can possibly have. The Labor Party will be shown up for the hypocrites that they are.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion is concluded.Personal Explanations2117916:33:0021179Mr LEE,MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?MG4Mr LEE,MPMr LEE—Yes, on two occasions.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Please proceed.MG4Mr LEE,MPMr LEE—The first occasion was when the member for Robertson accused me of using dishonest arguments in this debate about the government's new school funding system. He claimed the Prime Minister had pulled me up and had exposed the fact that I had used dishonest arguments. Far from that, the Prime Minister has confirmed that the largest increases go to the richest schools, and I use the example of King's in particular.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—To assist the Chief Government Whip, the honourable member for Dobell will now go to his second point and not debate any of the issues.MG4Mr LEE,MPMr LEE—The second misrepresentation, the second occasion when the member for Robertson misled the House, was when he claimed that I had misled the public by opposing the government's legislation whilst all along planning to support the government's legislation. The opposition moved amendments in the House of Representatives debate and will be moving amendments in the Senate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.Miscellaneous2117916:34:0021179Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—by leave—I move:That this House:(1) recalls, on Fiji Day, the long-standing links of friendship between Australia and Fiji and all their people and their common commitment to democratic values and human dignity;(2) notes the widespread expressions of grave international concern, including by the Foreign Ministers of the South Pacific Forum and the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, at the national impact and regional consequences of recent unlawful armed actions in Fiji;(3) condemns the forced removal from office of the democratically elected Government of Fiji;(4) deplores all those who resort to hostage taking and other forms of terrorism as a means of pursuing their political aims;(5) expresses its strong concern at calls from a few within Fiji for a new, blatantly discriminatory, constitution, and(6) calls for the earliest possible return of democratic rule in Fiji on the basis of a fair, balanced and democratic constitution. As the motion makes clear, today is indeed Fiji Day. It is a day when the Australian government and the Australian people would naturally want to recall the longstanding links that we have with Fiji—the friendship between our two countries, the very close ties in areas historically of politics, of trade, of investment and on the sporting field. The peoples of Australia and the peoples of Fiji know each other well, and in that spirit we would all, of course, like to join the Fijian people everywhere in celebrating Fiji Day. Our close links with Fiji though have meant that we have watched with great sadness the events during the course of this year starting on 19 May, when George Speight and his gang took hostage the Prime Minister and the democratically elected government of Fiji in their parliament. We were, naturally enough, relieved when, after 56 days in captivity, on 13 July the Prime Minister and his ministers were released. But the simple fact is that this seizure of the Prime Minister and his ministers led to the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Fiji. This was indeed a very great tragedy.Fiji, as everybody knows, is an ethnically divided country with 42 or 43 per cent of the population being of Indian origin, about 51 per cent being of indigenous Fijian origin and the rest of the population being from a variety of other origins. For Fiji to work as a country, for the community of Fiji to bind together, there has to be a democratic process which is regarded by all as fair. No-one could regard what George Speight and his supporters did on 19 May as fair, and no-one could regard the overthrow of the Fijian constitution and the overthrow of Mahendra Chaudhry and his government as in any way fair. Inevitably this has led to bitter resentment, bitter debate and bitter dispute in Fiji, and that can only be resolved with the restoration of democracy. Australia unashamedly has taken the leading role internationally on this issue, and we have taken a very strong stand. We have introduced a series of what we call smart sanctions of targeted measures—not to take measures which are disproportionate in their impact, throwing people out of work, reducing living standards more than they have already been reduced, but measures which not only demonstrate our deep concern about what has happened in Fiji but also target those who in particular are responsible for what has been done. I am also pleased to say that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group has been effective in galvanising international opinion for the restoration of democracy in Fiji and the upholding of democratic values. Not only has the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group been effective in its work but so too, perhaps one could say belatedly, has the South Pacific Forum. In 1987, at the time of the Fiji coups, the South Pacific community was divided: Australia and New Zealand, naturally enough, outraged about the overthrow of the democratic government in Fiji. Australia and New Zealand were largely not supported by other countries in the South Pacific. On this occasion it has been possible for the South Pacific foreign ministers to get together as they did quite recently in Apia in Samoa and to express as a South Pacific community our condemnation and our deep concern about what has happened in Fiji. Fiji will not be fully accepted back into the international community until democracy is restored, until there is a recognition of the equal rights of the people of Fiji and there is an attempt by leaders in Fiji, whoever they may be, whatever walk of life they may be from, to bind people back together under the re-established democratic institutions. We will, of course, help with the restoration of democracy in Fiji, but our relationship cannot return to normality until that has happened. I know these sentiments are shared by all members of the House, and it is really with great pleasure that I move this motion today because this motion does send a message not just here in Australia but to all of the people of Fiji of the deep concern that there is in Australia—a country with such close and deep links with Fiji—at what has happened to that country in recent times. It is a great tragedy, and we as a parliament, not just as a government, urge the Fijian interim government to restore democracy as soon as possible. 16:41:0021181Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—The motion moved today by the Minister for Foreign Affairs is of significance as much for what it does not say as for what it does. Nearly five months have passed since Mahendra Chaudhry and his government were taken hostage by those terrorists and since we saw them removed from office through an unconstitutional action. Of course, coup leader George Speight may well now face treason charges, but his racist policies remain alive and well. On 15 September the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs has said, met in New York. With Foreign Minister Downer in attendance, CMAG rejected Fiji's interim administration's plan to hold new elections in two years after introducing a new, racially discriminatory constitution. CMAG noted that the 1997 constitution had been unanimously endorsed by the Great Council of Chiefs and by the two houses of the Fiji parliament. It expressed its very real concern that the interim administration intends the new constitution to incorporate further restrictions on the basis of racial origin. CMAG viewed with concern that the interim administration in Fiji is itself the product of the unconstitutional overthrow of an elected government and that its actions therefore lack both legitimacy and credibility. This was a very good statement. On 18 September New Zealand Foreign Minister Goff welcomed CMAG's decision. He affirmed the importance of early elections in Fiji—elections within the framework of the 1997 constitution. Goff made the important point that the interim government has no mandate to change the 1997 constitution and that its replacement with a racially biased one will be a grave injustice to the 44 per cent of the population who are of Indo-Fijian descent.Today's motion expresses strong concern `at calls from a few within Fiji for a new, blatantly-discriminatory constitution.' But the motion says nothing about the unconstitutional nature of the interim administration. Nothing is said about its declared intentions. The redrawing of Fiji's constitution was, of course, one of George Speight's key demands. The Constitutional Review Commission announced in Suva last Friday is dominated by Fijian nationals, including Speight sympathisers. The commission is to make recommendations by June 2001 so that a new constitution can be drafted by the end of next year and elections held between March and June in the year 2002. Elections may take place in 18 months but neither the process of constitutional review nor its outcome is likely to be acceptable. The interim government's intention to proclaim a new internal security decree to suppress political dissent and to suppress trade union activity is further cause of great concern to us.It is worth posing the question: just where does the Australian government stand in all this? Today's motion puts Australia at some distance from New Zealand, and we know that New Zealand continues to press for the restoration of the 1997 constitution. Instead, today's motion calls for the earliest possible return of democratic rule on the basis of a fair, balanced and democratic constitution. Nice words but, I put it to the House, very ambiguous words. It is clear that the Australian government has given up on the 1997 constitution. With that, it has stepped down the slippery slope of accommodating the unconstitutional interim government and whatever new constitutional arrangements it might put in place.Australia and Fiji and officials are engaged in negotiation on a successor agreement to the import credit scheme, which has benefited the Fijian garment industry through preferential access to Australian markets. Labor has been advised by reliable sources in Fiji that, despite CMAG's support for the 1997 constitution, the Australian government has privately indicated a preparedness to put in place a successor arrangement to the import credit scheme, provided the interim government commits itself to elections in approximately 18 months but before Australia or anyone else knows the details of any new constitution. Labor has been further advised that following discussion with Foreign Minister Downer, who I notice is just leaving the chamber, Fiji's interim foreign minister put this proposition to his cabinet colleagues at their meeting on Wednesday, 22 September, and that they agreed. The interim administration announced its new timetable for elections last Friday, 6 October. An announcement about a successor to the import credit scheme will presumably be forthcoming from Canberra once negotiations on the detail are finalised. Having dragged its feet on sanctions when the Mahendra Chaudhry government was overthrown, the Australian government is now quietly getting on with business. A democratic government and constitution have been swept away. Many countries looked to Australia to give leadership to the international response to Fiji's crises. That leadership was conspicuously lacking. Instead, quiet acquiescence has been the order of the day—and that sad reality I think lies very much behind the government motion moved here today.Question resolved in the affirmative.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order goes to the House of Representatives Practice, third edition, at page 277. I noticed that when the shadow minister for foreign affairs was speaking on this very important matter going to our international standing and our association with one of our Pacific island nations, Fiji, there was a point at which there was no minister or representative of the government in the House. My understanding is that there is a convention that a minister or parliamentary secretary should be represented in the chamber at all times.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! I think I can assist the honourable member for Batman. I know his point of order. The Chief Government Whip can also resume his seat. I think that the honourable member for Batman is aware that the minister obviously had other duties. In endeavouring to try to get another minister to the table, he took phone calls in the attendants office. Whilst this is highly unusual, I think that at least he made some attempt to keep an eye on proceedings in the chamber. I understand that the Chief Government Whip, to his credit, was endeavouring to ensure that a minister was at the table and on duty, and I thank him for his cooperation.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Further to the point of order: this is the second occasion that I have been on duty when the same disregard has been shown by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the chair. On one previous occasion, he left the House, and again today. I think we should establish that the Whip should be required to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of this convention and remind him of his responsibilities.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Batman will resume his seat. I cannot make comment on the other incident. I can only make comment on the incident that occurred today. I think that everybody understands the requirements that have been the precedence for the way in which the chamber has operated: that there is a requirement for a minister to be in the chamber with the authority to act on behalf of the government. I think that attempts were made to minimise there not being a minister present on this occasion.Miscellaneous2118210000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 11 October 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.Miscellaneous21182Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:Horticulture Marketing and Research and Development Services (Repeals and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2000Horticulture Marketing and Research and Development Services Bill 2000Committees21182211822118216:51:0021182Nehl, 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, 30 October 2000. The report will be printed in today's Hansard, and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting. The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 30 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, 30 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 ZIMBABWE: The Parliamentary Elections in Zimbabwe 24 - 25 June 2000: Report of the Australian Parliamentary Observer Delegation.The Committee determined that all statements on the report conclude by 12.45 p.m.Speech time limits —First Member speaking — 8 minutes.Second Member speaking — 7 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 1 x 8 mins, 1 x 7 mins]2 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE — JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Australian Government Loan to Papua New Guinea.The Committee determined that all statements on the report conclude by 12.55 p.m.Speech time limits —Each Member — 5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]3 TREATIES—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Report 36: Two treaties tabled on 15 August 2000.The Committee determined that all statements on the report conclude by 1.15 p.m.Speech time limits —Each Member — 5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNoticesMr K. J. Thomson to present a bill for an act to amend the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992. (Notice given 5 October 2000.)Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 15 minutes — pursuant to sessional order 104A.2Ms KERNOT to present a bill for an act to establish an authority to monitor the operations of the Job Network, and for related purposes. (Notice given 9 October 2000.)Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 15 minutes — pursuant to sessional order 104A.3Mr pyne: To move—That the House: (1) recognises that easing restrictions on parallel importing will result in cheaper prices for Australian consumers; (2) acknowledges that easing restrictions on parallel importing will allow Australian consumers to enjoy a greater range of products; and (3) confirms that easing restrictions on parallel importing improves product innovation and development. (Notice given 10 April 2000.)Time allotted — 30 minutes.Speech time limits —Mover of motion — 10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking — 10 minutes.Other Members — 5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.4Ms hall: To move—That this House: (1) remembers the extraordinary deeds of John Simpson Kirkpatrick who, with his donkeys, rescued injured above and beyond the call of duty until he was himself killed; and (2) implores the Government to award a posthumous Victoria Cross of Australia to “Simpson” in accordance with the wishes of his WWI commanding officers and overwhelming public demand. (Notice given 7 June 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.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Bills21184R116321184Debate resumed from 4 October, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.16:52:0021184Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The opposition supports the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation (Provision of Information) Bill 2000. We understand that the Australian Electoral Commission has been giving departments a range of electoral roll information in electronic form for some time. Following advice from the Solicitor-General in June of this year, it appears that the AEC has been doing so quite unlawfully. Not only did the Solicitor-General's advice force the Prime Minister to abort his GST direct mail letter which was to go to all households in Australia; it also made the AEC review its past and future handling of the Commonwealth electoral roll. This bill arises from that legal advice.Unfortunately, the government has refused opposition requests to see the Solicitor-General's advice, so we are unable to see to what extent the bill does actually reflect the advice. Nevertheless, given that the Prime Minister's letter was embarrassingly withdrawn—perhaps humiliatingly withdrawn might be an even more appropriate description—and the Australian Taxation Office returned the electronic roll to the Electoral Commission, we can safely deduce that the Solicitor-General advised the AEC that it could not give the Taxation Office the roll in electronic form for the purposes of a mail-out, as it had done previously.The opposition's understanding is that the AEC could only provide elector information in electronic format to departments, if permitted purposes for the use of that information had been prescribed. At the time of the Prime Minister's GST letter fiasco, no such permitted purposes had been prescribed. Therefore, in broad terms, the opposition supports this piece of legislation because, first, it should resolve any questions about previous use, by agencies, of electronically supplied elector information; second, it should preclude arguments about the admissibility of evidence in court which had been gathered relying on the use of such elector information; and, third, it should resolve any questions about the future use of that information. On that basis, the opposition supports the bill.16:54:0021184Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The matters before us appear, on first glance, quite procedural and, as outlined by the member for Melbourne, are necessary to address some legality associated with what had been standard practice: the use of the electronic version of the electoral roll by various agencies such as the National Crime Authority, Federal Police and Customs. They are agencies which have made use of the electronic form of the information which underpins the electoral roll upon which we all rely as members of parliament. I must say also that members of parliament themselves have come to rely upon being able to use this database of electors in a way which assists them in communications with their constituents and helps them to keep a note of those communications in a readily accessible form. I am sure that all members in this place would welcome the passage of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation (Provision of Information) Bill 2000, including its speedy passage through the Senate, so that we can get on with the business of accurately representing our constituents and recording our activities on their behalf on those databases which we do maintain in a very confidential way. But this matter also raises the concern held by so many people in Queensland about the integrity of the electoral processes taking place in that state. Given that the Queensland electoral roll and the Commonwealth electoral roll have been hand in glove for about 15 years now, it is important for us in this place to reflect upon just what is unfolding in Queensland at the moment in the form of the Shepherdson inquiry into allegations regarding the illegal obtaining of enrolments for the purposes of the Australian Labor Party and its preselection processes and other matters.Apparently, the Labor Party in Queensland has the requirement of your having to be enrolled in an electorate in which you are participating in a preselection ballot. As a result of this, there have been some vigorous efforts by the Labor Party basically to rort the roll for its internal processes. It has also been a convenient factor when it comes to elections which have been taking place in various seats. As I said to the parliament last week, this is not a matter which is isolated only in the region of Townsville. Two of my constituents were named in connection with the Shepherdson inquiry as being key and keen participants in this particular activity.I think it is very important to know the following details. The member for Woodridge in the Queensland parliament, Mike Kaiser, a former State Secretary of the Labor Party, has been mentioned in dispatches. The party returning officer, Joan Budd—who is the wife of former member for Redlands John Budd—told the Shepherdson inquiry yesterday, according to the Courier-Mail, that she had told State Secretary Kaiser two forged Electoral Commission white cards had been used in an attempt to enrol ALP members for a preselection vote in the East Brisbane council ward in 1993. The member for Griffith would share my concern about this matter, given that we have this ward covering both of our electorates. This means the Labor Party in 1993 was involved in rorting the electoral roll for the purposes of internal matters, which then became a convenient matter come election time. If Mr Kaiser knew about these matters when he was state secretary, it begs the question as to why two other former state secretaries of the Labor Party also did not know about these matters and why they did not do something about them.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Who were they?CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Those particular people—in reply to the interjection of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration—were the current Premier of Queensland, Mr Beattie, and the current member for Lilley, Mr Swan. Both were state secretaries of the Australian Labor Party at a point in time when this rorting occurred. (Quorum formed)The dogs have been barking for the member for the Northern Territory ever since that famous dog show he hired a VIP to go to a few years ago. I am surprised how sensitive the Australian Labor Party are on this matter. I would have thought that members opposite would have been interested in democracy and ensuring that the integrity of our electoral roll was never under any doubt. If those opposite want to keep raising quorums and points of order all afternoon, don't you worry, because we have enough material here to fill a thousand adjournment speeches and we will keep it coming.Let me tell you that the facts do not just rest with the relationships of John and Joan Budd, Mr Kaiser, Mr Beattie and Mr Swan. Lindesay Jones, the former assistant state secretary, was also one of the people who knew about the fraud claims that are becoming obvious because of the Shepherdson inquiry. His wife wanted to be a senator for Queensland. If the AWU had not got her, she might have got up as a Socialist Left candidate. Then there is Linda Lavarch, who is now an MLA for the seat of Kurwongbah. Lavarch might be a name familiar to those who have been in this chamber for a while. Yes, she is the wife of the former Attorney-General of Australia, and she was also named as the recipient of a letter in October 1993 from then Assistant State Secretary Jones concerned about unprecedented electoral stacking in the ward of East Brisbane. So Mrs Budd has dropped in a few more people.The relationships become pretty interesting. The current councillor for East Brisbane ward is Catherine Bermingham. Her brother Lee was named in proceedings last week—he is my constituent; in fact Catherine is also a constituent of mine—as being one of the key and keen vote rorters in the Australian Labor Party in Queensland. Then we hear that Jim Elder might have in fact been told about this. Jim Elder is the Deputy Premier of Queensland. In fact, Mrs Budd said that she had told the Deputy Premier, Jim Elder, that former AWU faction member Lee Bermingham had allegedly asked Brisbane party member Ross Musgrove—the brother of Grant Musgrove, the member for Springwood in the Queensland parliament—to put his numbers into Mundingburra for the 1996 election. That was the supplementary election that was ordered following the doubts cast over 15 ballot papers at the real election that took place in 1995. As history reflects, as a result of those fraudulent ballots, a new election was called, the seat of Mundingburra was won by the Liberal Party and the state government of Queensland changed to a very effective coalition government, although short-lived. So it is interesting to know that Mrs Budd interpreted this request as being to transfer Labor members onto the roll. This morning's Courier-Mail states: Ms Budd said she believed Mr Bermingham was the person responsible “because of talk I heard around”.But it seems to go even further than that. The article states:She also said Mr Elder, ALP president Don Brown, and party organiser Linda Holliday—a former councillor in the Brisbane City Council, the darling of the Socialist Left and the partner of Queensland government minister Mr Stephen Robertson—did not believe it.She said that they did not believe any of these allegations. So they all sat on it. The points are really quite interesting when you start to consider all the relationships between all the people. It is not just factional business we are talking about in the Shepherdson inquiry; it is a family concern. It is a family business. So what did all of these people do about this? Essentially, they sat on their hands and did nothing. If it had not been for the fact that Karen Ehrmann and a couple of others had got caught and Ehrmann had rolled over—and became a Labor rat, I guess—this part of the Labor culture may not have been revealed in the sort of detail that we have heard.All of this raises questions about a number of interesting people in important positions in Queensland: the Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier, Mike Reynolds, and Paul Lucas, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee. The parliamentary committee which oversights the CJC was also mentioned in dispatches yesterday with regard to Mr Lucas's preselection for the Lytton by-election. Mr Lucas said that he had not been interviewed by the CJC on the matter, which makes me wonder just how important the parliamentary inquiry at the federal level is now becoming. Then there is Gary Fenlon, the member for Greenslopes and Chairman of the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee. One of their current inquiries is into the minimisation of electoral fraud. We now have Caesar judging Caesar in the Queensland parliament. I make the point again: the parliamentary inquiry being conducted by a subcommittee of this parliament has never been more important when we consider what is occurring in Queensland.Madam Deputy Speaker, let me tell you about Stephen Robertson. Stephen Robertson is the member for Sunnybank, which includes part of my electorate. He is the Minister for Emergency Services, but his nickname in the 1980s was the `little bagman' in the United Firefighters Union. The 1991 Cooke inquiry into union corruption in Queensland said that the ballot he presided over as the state secretary of that union in 1985 was—and I quote from page 76, section 3.12.12 of the Cooke inquiry—`fraudulently rigged'. So here we have in Queensland key and important parts of the current government who have been involved in this Labor culture of rigging ballots. Councillor Catherine Bermingham and others in the Brisbane City Council certainly have more to answer for. I am also left wondering about the effects of— 10000Kelly, De-Anne (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—The member for Batman has a point of order.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Another coward's quorum, is it?LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—If you want to call me a coward, get outside and say it. I draw your attention to the state of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask the member for Batman to withdraw that allegation. That is outrageous. It is unparliamentary, and he has to withdraw it.10000Kelly, De-Anne (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—I did not hear the comment myself.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Madam Deputy Speaker, I have drawn your attention to the state of the House. I am asking you to act in accordance with the standing orders.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Madam Deputy Speaker, there was an allegation made about the member for Moreton which I now ask you to direct the member for Batman to withdraw.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Madam Deputy Speaker, if it would assist you, I am simply quoting from this morning's Courier-Mail. If the member for Batman is so sensitive, I think we should just get on with the business of the House.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Madam Deputy Speaker, you are obligated to act in accordance with my request. I have drawn your attention to the state of the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will read the standing orders, thank you. There has been a question raised about unparliamentary language.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Madam Deputy Speaker, if I understand what this is about, it is the fact that there was an allegation about this person—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Have you a point of order?IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Yes, I have. It was not unparliamentary. It is a term which is often used in this parliament about the question of cowardice. He has yelled out `coward' across this chamber several times this afternoon, with no point of order taken by the opposition. This person has used the parliament this afternoon to make attacks on individuals in this place.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Madam Deputy Speaker, standing and sessional order 76 says:All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.The member for Batman made an outrageous allegation against the member for Moreton, which was heard on this side of the House. I do ask that you reflect on that and ask him to withdraw those words. If he does not, he should be suspended from the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I did not hear the comment, but the member for the Northern Territory has told us now what it was. It does seem to be an unparliamentary comment and I would ask the member for Batman to withdraw it.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Madam Deputy Speaker, the comment I made was identical to the comment made by the member for Moreton. He went first; I went second. If you act consistently, then I will act.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Madam Deputy Speaker, the reflection on the chair by the member for Batman is outrageous and I ask him to withdraw that as well.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Madam Deputy Speaker, it was not a reflection on the chair; it was a statement of fact. You did not hear me and I assume you did not hear the member for Moreton. I have drawn your attention to the facts. The member for Moreton made the comments about cowardice in the chamber first. I responded to him and asked him to make the comments outside this House. It is tit for tat. If you did not hear either, then the record is square.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Moreton, is that in fact so?CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not going to play childish games like the member for Batman. I can simply say to you that I did reflect upon his cowardice in continuing to call quorums and to make frivolous points of order, and this is exactly what he is trying to do. He is afraid of hearing the facts associated with the corruption of the Australian Labor Party in Queensland. What the member for Batman is doing this afternoon is a disgrace. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Madam Deputy Speaker, I take you back to my original point: I draw your attention to the state of the House. You did not hear the intervention by the member for Moreton, which preceded my intervention, nor did you hear my intervention. You should therefore act on the request that I made, and I draw your attention to the state of the House again. There was no reflection on you, and the exchange between the member for Moreton and me stands between us two.(Quorum formed)CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—It is a disgrace to think that the union heavyweights opposite have decided to spend the whole afternoon denying the possibility of proper discussion about the fraud that has been committed by Labor Party personalities in Queensland. They will keep trying to silence us, but they will not silence the people.10000Kelly, De-Anne (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—Order! The honourable member's time has expired.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—Madam Deputy Speaker, is it possible to move for an extension of time in this debate, given that there are no further speakers listed on this matter?10000Kelly, De-Anne (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—That is not possible.17:15:0021188Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—Initially, I would like to express the concern that I believe the people of Australia would have about the way in which the Labor Party sought to muzzle the member for Moreton as he outlined what does appear to be institutionalised electoral fraud in Queensland. This bill contains provisions which will resolve any questions about past use of electronically supplied elector information by prescribed Commonwealth government agencies and authorities, being prescribed authorities as listed in schedule 2 of the Electoral and Referendum Regulations and as defined in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The bill also contains provisions which will avoid any uncertainty surrounding the admissibility of evidence in court which has been gathered relying in some way on electronically supplied elector information. The bill will also resolve any questions about future use of elector information that was supplied electronically and which has been incorporated into prescribed authorities' information systems and from which it would be impracticable to identify and/or remove the information. The coalition does indeed welcome the support of the Australian Labor Party with respect to the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation (Provision of Information) Bill 2000.The member for Moreton, however, in his contribution pointed out the very real concerns and question marks which now apply against the names of Premier Beattie, Joan Budd, Lindesay Jones, Linda Lavarch, Catherine Bermingham, Deputy Premier Elder, Linda Holliday, Ross Musgrove and the member for Lilley. He referred to factional business in the Australian Labor Party being `family business'. He referred to the culture of Labor, and we are of course seeing daily in the Shepherdson inquiry the unveiling of Labor practices and procedures which most Queensland residents would find utterly abhorrent. We have seen questions raised about the parliamentary secretary to the Premier, Mike Reynolds; Paul Lucas, Chairman of the CJC; and Gary Fenlon, Chairman of the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee who, most amazingly, is handling the inquiry into the minimisation of electoral fraud.The member for Moreton referred to the `little bagman' in the United Firefighters Union, Stephen Robertson, the Minister for Emergency Services. He also referred to the comments made by eminent QC Marshall Cooke in his inquiry into union corruption when he said that the ballot presided over by the then office bearer in the United Firefighters Union, Stephen Robertson—now Minister for Emergency Services—was fraudulently rigged. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I understood that the debate was about the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation (Provision of Information) Bill 2000. My point of order goes to the question of relevance. The issues being raised by the parliamentary secretary are not related to the bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Resume your seat. The reality is that other occupants of the chair have allowed a wide ranging debate, and I will continue the precedent set by the previous deputy speaker.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Part of my role in summing up this legislation on behalf of the government is to refer to the speeches—erudite or otherwise—made by honourable members. I was simply referring to matters in the Hansard which were raised by the member for Moreton in his contribution to the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation (Provision of Information) Bill 2000. The member for Moreton also referred to Catherine Bermingham. Indeed, questions must now be asked about the Brisbane City Council. Day by day, Queenslanders remain fascinated as they turn the pages of the Courier-Mail and are appalled by what they see as institutionalised electoral fraud in the Australian Labor Party. As the current secretary to the Australian Labor Party, Cameron Milner, suggested, the ALP could well take water at the time of the next election. I want to make a prediction that the Beattie Labor government will be swept from office whenever the next state election is held.But, returning to the specific provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation (Provision of Information) Bill 2000, I wanted to point out that the Australian Electoral Commission had been providing a number of other prescribed authorities with electoral roll data under the provisions of subsection 91(10) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. As the act does not provide for end use restrictions on the data supplied to prescribed authorities under this legislation, the AEC used the privacy principles under the Privacy Act 1988 for guidance, together with a safeguard agreement made between the AEC and the requesting agency.After questioning at Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee estimates hearings on 24 May of this year the AEC sought additional legal advice in written form to confirm previous legal advice from the office of the Australian Government Solicitor so that it could provide elector information to prescribed authorities in electronic format. Despite several legal opinions since 1991 that continued to advise that the AEC could lawfully provide this information, the Solicitor-General advised on 8 June 2000 that the AEC could not provide prescribed authorities with the electoral roll in electronic format under subsection 91(10) but could do so under paragraph 91(4A)(e).However, the supply of the electoral roll in electronic format under paragraph 91(4A)(e) would require a regulation under subsection 91A(1) in order for the prescribed authorities to be able to use the information. No regulations had been made to that effect at that time. However, whilst prescribing regulations would authorise future use by prescribed authorities of the elector information supplied in electronic format, regulations could not be used to authorise past use. This can only be done by enacting legislation. On 8 June 2000 the Attorney-General issued a media release indicating that the government would seek to rectify, through legislation, regulation or other appropriate action, the past use by prescribed authorities of elector information received in electronic format.There was also concern that prescribed authorities may have difficulty in progressing cases which had in some way relied upon elector information supplied electronically by the Australian Electoral Commission. Without the proposed amendments, there is a possibility that previous actions taken by prescribed authorities as a result of the use of elector information could be called into question and that challenges to prosecutions may result in lengthier trials and an increase in the number of appeals. The government's legal advice is that such challenges and appeals are not likely to succeed. However, they could result in an unnecessary waste of court time and legal resources. It is therefore preferable that any doubt in relation to the past use of elector information by prescribed authorities be removed. These amendments will fulfil that purpose. The proposed amendments will also authorise the future use of elector information previously supplied on tape or disk that has been incorporated into a prescribed authority's information systems from which it would be impracticable to identify and/or remove the elector information supplied by the Australian Electoral Commission. This will ensure that future actions taken by prescribed authorities using such material cannot be called into question. On 26 June 2000, cabinet agreed that the AEC should prepare legislation which would resolve any questions about past use of the electronically supplied elector information and also resolve any questions about unavoidable future uses of the information. The uses to which the prescribed authorities can now put electronically supplied elector information are set out in the Electoral and Referendum Regulations made on 25 July 2000. Members on both sides of the House support this legislation. It is vital that it proceed to the other place tomorrow. I have a great deal of pleasure in commending the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.21190Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Bills21190R110421190Debate resumed from 29 June, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.17:25:0021190Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate this afternoon. I am indebted to the Parliamentary Library for their very informative Bills Digest, which is up to their normal very professional standard. The purpose of this bill, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Tallies and Picnic Days) Bill 2000, is to remove tallies from allowable award matters and, as a result, from federal awards. The effect of the bill will be to narrow the scope of matters which federal awards can address. Tallies—which are, as you would be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, from your background in the rural areas of North Queensland, a form of piece rate or a payment of results remuneration system—have been included in the meat industry awards. The bill also prevents a union Picnic Day clause being considered as an allowable award matter, although union picnic days are not currently prescribed as allowable award matters. The bill also creates a six-month interim period from the bill's date of commencement during which parties to an award can apply to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to vary the award so that it provides only for allowable matters. At the end of this period, non-allowable matters cease to have effect. At the end of the interim period, the commission must review each award to ensure that it contains only allowable award matters.These issues—that is, the removal of tallies and union picnic days from this legislation—as I am sure you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker—were canvassed in the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999. That bill was referred to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Committee for inquiry in August 1999. The committee reported on the bill on 29 November 1999. Schedule 6 of the More Jobs, Better Pay bill proposed removing some matters from allowable award matters while making the following non-allowable: minimum or maximum hours of work; transfers between work locations; transfers from one type of employment to another, for example part-time to full-time; training and education; recording of work times; accident make-up pay; union representation for dispute settling procedures; union picnic days; limitation of numbers of employees of certain types; and tallies.As an aside on this question of training and education, I am advised that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs visited Groote Eylandt recently, and was involved in discussing with people on Groote Eylandt, Aboriginal people in particular, employment and training issues. He visited, as I understand it, a group of Aboriginal trainees employed by the mining company on Groote Eylandt. He was informed that their training time was paid for by the company. He—in the presence of those being trained—said that they should be paying for their own training. I guess that sums up this minister in relation to the extent to which he is prepared to go to deny Australians protection not only through awards but also through the provision of entitlements, in this case by an employer, to appropriate training so that the workers are sufficiently skilled up to take jobs that are available within the workplace. To date, as you would be aware, the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 has not passed the Senate. What we have seen here is what the minister said we could expect, and that is that he would reintroduce parts of the bill in bite-sized chunks. Removing Picnic Day as an allowable public holiday will reduce award public holiday entitlements. Its effect will be to reduce public holidays from 11 to 10. The effect of making union picnic days non-allowable will be to reduce the public holiday entitlements of workers covered by awards that include picnic days. Instead of receiving the 11 standard public holidays determined by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission those workers will receive 10.I have seen a number of awards, and I am thinking this afternoon of the Storage Services General Award 1999 and its public holidays clause. If you read that award, it contains Picnic Day as a holiday. The award is consistent with the commission's public holidays test case standard. All workers covered by the award, whether union members or not, are entitled to the union picnic day public holiday. If this day is to be deleted no alternative day will apply, leading to a reduction in public holidays from 11 to 10. Workers covered by awards with a union picnic day public holiday will be penalised by the loss of one public holiday by this bill merely because one of the public holidays is called union picnic day. Other workers will suffer no reduction in comparison.I might say that union picnic day is very important to many Australians. It is worth while pointing out that in the case of the Northern Territory, as you may be aware, Picnic Day has been legislated for by the Northern Territory Assembly. The Northern Territory has a Picnic Day provision in its public holidays act. Picnic Day is on the first Monday in August and is included as part of the 11 public holidays. You may not be aware that this Picnic Day in Darwin on the first Monday in August is in fact on Darwin Cup Day. Some time ago my colleague Senator Crossin said that the government was proposing to remove this holiday from the calendar. That was denied by the CLP in the Northern Territory and by the spokesperson for the government. It is now writ large in this legislation that the government's very intention is to delete this Picnic Day from awards thus ensuring that the number of public holidays in the Northern Territory is reduced from 11 to 10 and by the way ensuring that Darwin Cup Day will no longer be held on picnic day or a public holiday.I am not sure whether the minister has been the bearer of these good tidings, as he would see it, to the Northern Territory government, the Northern Territory racing industry, the Northern Territory tourism industry and Northern Territory hospitality industry. But I would say that this is just an indication of the consequences of what I regard as a very ill thought out and inappropriate proposal in this legislation. It also needs to be understood that in most awards the standard public holiday award clause also provides for the facility for an employer and a majority of employees to take an alternative day in lieu of the specified standard public holidays. Substitution agreements can also be made involving individual employees.Other standard public holidays and awards include the Queen's Birthday. You will recall that part of the argument for the reduction of union picnic days is the level of unionisation within the Australian work force. The view has been put that, because the level of unionisation has diminished over the years, there is no longer a call to have this public holiday. I am sure none of us would propose—certainly I would not—that it is appropriate to remove the Queen's Birthday from the list of official holidays. But how many Australians pay any regard to the Queen or the royal family on the Queen's Birthday public holiday? Indeed, if you were to ask Australian workers what they celebrate on the Queen's Birthday public holiday, I am damn sure they would say, `Not the Queen.' All workers are entitled to that holiday, even republicans. Most of the workers that I am aware of—certainly in my electorate—would fall into the category of republicans. We know that non-Christian people are entitled to Easter and Christmas holidays. Even the minister himself, as much as he opposes unions, would—if he were covered by an award—be entitled to Labour Day. I think the point needs to be made here that this is unnecessary and entirely inappropriate. You would have to accord some merit to the argument that this is all about the ideological prerogative that the minister believes he has in determining the nature of industrial relations in this country. You have to say that, if this is the way the government proposes to deal with these issues, the only people who are going to be disadvantaged by it are Australian workers.Whilst the minister perennially parades into this place, going on about what he is doing to improve the lot of Australian workers, we know that, as I pointed out earlier in my contribution, his attitudes towards Australian workers do not reflect the gratitude he would want them to have because, clearly, what he is about is stripping away award conditions and entitlements and ensuring that Australian workers are, in fact, worse off. I have had cause to mention these issues in this place before. It is also worth pointing out some other things, and I thank the Parliamentary Library for this information. There are a number of commission decisions relevant to picnic days and public holidays. The commission in its public holidays test case in 1994 determined that federal award employees throughout Australia are entitled to a minimum safety net of 11 public holidays per year. Easter Saturday was found to be a public holiday. The applications were made in response to the intention of the Victorian government to reduce the number of public holidays in 1993. The commission named 10 public holidays and provided that one other day be specified according to state, territory or locality or on some other basis—such as an award picnic day.In 1997, another full bench of the commission was required to consider the continuation of the union picnic days within the requirements of award simplification or, more accurately, under the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Act's transitional provisions. In what became known as the award simplification decision, the commission held that union picnic days had been considered as public holidays for decades. The decision says:The employers and the Joint Governments submitted that union picnic days are not gazetted holidays or holidays which the public in general enjoys. Against these considerations is the fact that union picnic days have been included in the public holiday provisions of awards for decades in a large number of industries.There are numerous decisions of the Commission and its predecessor, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, in which a union picnic day has been treated as a public holiday. The Full Bench decision which established the test case standard for leave entitlements in Commission awards relating to public holidays included union picnic day as a day which may be included as one of the additional public holidays constituting the minimum entitlement of leave under the public holiday clauses. As we have already indicated, the use of terms in their industrial context is an important element in construing the matters listed in s.89A(2).We have therefore concluded that union picnic day falls within the expression public holidays for the purposes of s.89(A)2(i).The effect of this decision has been that, even though union picnic days are not expressly identified as allowable award matters under section 89(A) of the act, they have been regarded as public holidays which are allowable.It is very clear that the approach being adopted by the government is both mean minded and mean spirited. The government needs to contemplate, firstly, why it is carrying out this activity given that holidays are of themselves, by and large, matters up to state and territory jurisdictions. To come into this place and seek to take out the ability of workers to enjoy a picnic day underlines, in my mind, very clearly the mean-spirited approach being adopted by the government. The other major provision of this legislation is the matter which deals with tallies. The act specifies `piece rates, tallies and bonuses' as allowable award matters. Tallies and bonuses are used to set pay rates in agricultural industries such as the meat industry, sheep shearing, fruit picking and the clothing industry. The Workplace Relations Amendment (Tallies and Picnic Days) Bill 2000 will not remove either piece rates or bonuses as allowable award matters—only tallies.Again, I am indebted to the Parliamentary Library for the following information. The issue of tallies was considered by the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee in its review, which I referred to earlier, of the More Jobs Better Pay bill. At that time, the ACTU submitted that the three terms, piece rates, tallies and bonuses, are used interchangeably in awards in industries such as clothing and meat. It also expressed concern that clothing workers could lose their entitlements to bonus payments, and thus workers under these systems could seek clarification or attention of their particular earnings by results systems.Not surprisingly, the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business attempted to distinguish between the operation of these systems in its 1999 submission to the Senate committee. It argued that tallies are based on inputs, in contrast to piece rates systems, which are based on outputs.In contrast, the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union, the AMIEU, suggested in its submission on the More Jobs Better Pay bill that with the removal of tallies from awards, meat industry employers would replace the tally system with another piece rate system. Their submission reads:Removing tally provisions, given that most employers would maintain some form of incentive system, would destroy the effectiveness of the award safety net ... award tally provisions represent a key award entitlement, which must be maintained in order to avoid substantially reducing the award safety net.... employees in the meat industry are not highly paid by committee standards.The effect of making tallies a non-allowable award matter would be to make it legally possible to reduce a tally worker's gross pay by 25%. The safety net value of the award would become virtually irrelevant.It is very clear to me that the position we ought to be adopting on this legislation is not the one which is being advocated by the government. Further in their submission, the AMIEU stated that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission was reviewing the tally system as part of the process of reviewing awards, as is appropriate. The union said that to remove tallies as an allowable award matter would inhibit the Australian Industrial Relations Commission from implementing the federal meat industry decision, print R9075, particularly those aspects of the decision dealing with the tally provisions of the award in question, and that the evidence presented during the AIRC hearings showed that meat processors, while not using the award prescribed tally system, were using their own arrangements whether contained in certified agreements or by way of private arrangements between the employer and employees and/or union. Much of the case before the full bench of the AIRC was in relation to the tally system in the federal meat industry processing award 1996. The tally system is very clear. It is both unfair and unreasonable for the government to adopt the approach it has in relation to this matter. I referred a moment ago to the full bench's decision in the 1996 case. The decision was in relation to tallies in that award, but will have application to other awards containing tallies. The full bench at that time was conscious of the need to retain award protection for employees working under piece rate systems. It said:On the other hand, in our view, it is essential that the terms and conditions of any incentive payment system to operate in place of the standard time work payment system be documented, authenticated and readily ascertainable.Further, it said: Those measures are also necessary to ensure that employees have an opportunity to understand, or can readily ascertain, the terms of the incentive payment system, and are able to monitor accrual of entitlements under it.It is very clear that this bill's removal of tallies as an allowable award matter undermines the integrity of the decision reached by the AIRC and could prevent the AIRC from properly reviewing the effects of the FMID as it relates to fairness to employees. It is very clear that more work needs to be done on this issue. The government should be very conscious of our view; it is entirely inappropriate for this matter to be addressed in the way that is being proposed by this legislation. I have said before that it is very clear that this matter is being ideologically driven. In my view, this, and the question of picnic days, is something which the government should rethink. It is not appropriate to be doing it in this way. It will only penalise those people who should not be penalised—Australian workers. The issue of the holiday for picnic day will affect workers regardless of the industry they work in, and the issue of tallies will have most application for those industries that I have already mentioned, particularly the clothing industry and the meat industry. I do not believe that it is fair or reasonable to treat Australian workers with the disrespect that this bill seeks to do.17:48:0021194Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—I rise to talk on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Tallies and Picnic Days) Bill 2000 very proudly because, to my knowledge, I am the only member with a working-class background in this place who worked as a tally worker, both as a slaughterman and a boner in the meat processing industry, in my younger days, and I was also a member of the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union.Before I talk about my personal experiences as a qualified tally worker, I will reflect on the attitude of the Australian Democrats and the ALP on the workplace relations bills. In their 1998 IR election policy, the Democrats supported a simplified and usable award system. Their record on voting on coalition bills shows that, despite several opportunities, and this bill is yet another one, they have failed to act in accordance with their own policies. Despite their self-adulation as those who `keep the bastards honest' and as those who `do not just say no to legislation', they have failed to assess this bill and others on their merits. Despite their rejection of the More Jobs Better Pay legislation, largely on the basis that it was an inappropriate omnibus bill, they have failed to assess on the merits the bills, including this one, that the coalition has served up in bite-sized chunks just so the Democrats could manage them.Let me now talk about the Democrats workplace relations voting record. Between 1988 and 1996, Labor moved 17 pieces of industrial relations legislation through the Senate. Between 1996 and 2000, the coalition moved 16 pieces of workplace relations legislation through the Senate, with four bills currently in the House of Representatives. Only three items of Labor IR legislation were referred to committees, whereas 15 items of coalition legislation have been referred to committees. The Democrats even voted against a committee when Labor moved their 1988 omnibus bill—the Industrial Relations Bill 1988. The Democrats spent 833 days considering Labor's 17 pieces of legislation in the Senate—an average of 49 days per bill. By contrast, as at 6 September, they have spent 2,528 days considering the coalition's 16 pieces of legislation—an average of 158 days each. All pieces of Labor industrial relations legislation put before the Senate have passed into law, some with amendment, and every time there has been a vote on Labor's legislation the Democrats voted in favour.The Democrats have only ever voted in favour of two coalition workplace relations bills since the 1996 election. One further bill passed in the last parliament without a vote. Only one coalition workplace relations bill has passed during the present parliament, and that was with Labor support—and I refer to the youth wages bill 1999—with the Democrats voting against. In every other case the Democrats have voted down, disallowed or delayed coalition workplace relations legislation. The Democrats have voted down four coalition workplace relations bills, disallowed three regulations and delayed another bill until it died at the last election. There are currently four pieces of workplace relations legislation still blocked in the Senate, with a further four bills on their way from the House of Representatives. The Democrats have been prepared to deal with Labor IR legislation in omnibus form but have refused to do so to coalition omnibus legislation in the coalition's second term. By the time the parliament resumed sitting in August 2000, coalition workplace relations bills had been delayed for approximately three times longer than Labor's legislation was delayed, and this tally was racked up over half as many years. Let me now talk about the ALP's contribution. Award simplification should be a matter of bipartisan policy in this parliament. It was a policy advocated by the former Keating Labor government between 1993 and 1996. The Labor Party in opposition has, however, regressed in its own support for award simplification. It has caved in to its union mates, with an approach of mindless opposition, like that of the ACTU, to all award simplification. Rather than support simplified awards, Labor's policy promises the complete abolition of award simplification—awards which are comprehensive, not simplified.The removal of tallies from awards is long overdue and has been widely advocated within industry and by policy makers across the political divide. As related by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services to parliament on 26 June 2000:... for a short period only, (the Australian Labor Party) got realistic about this industry, and their spokesman, the then Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Peter Cook, in 1992 said `We ought to get rid of the tally system.' Peter Cook was not able to ... deliver. Do you know why not? The ACTU said no. Peter Cook said, `This will produce more jobs. This will save jobs and produce more jobs. It is an important reform. But the ACTU said no.'Why did the ACTU say `no'? The answer lies in the quote from an article in the Journal of Industrial Relations (MA Jerrard, March 2000), which described the tally system as:... the method by which the union controls the pace of throughput of the plant in a shift.The Democrats in particular will say that the bill is unnecessary and that the Industrial Relations Commission should put the remaining meat industry awards which contain tally provisions through the same process used for the major federal meat industry award. Neither the Labor Party nor the Democrats have called into question the AIRC decision to remove tallies from the major federal meat industry award. Apart from this award, unit tally systems also exist in a number of other federal meat awards. The removal of tallies as an allowable award matter will expedite the modernisation of these awards and remove the necessity for the commission and the parties to go through the same lengthy process they went through in respect of the major federal meat industry award.Let me now touch on my experiences. As a 14-year-old I went into the meat processing industry at a small country abattoir at Echuca in Victoria as a labourer. After labouring for two years, as a 16-year-old I wanted to become a slaughterman to earn more money and to get a profession. Unfortunately, the award of the day and the way the tally work was structured prevented me doing so, but there was a section in the award that I took advantage of and this was called the improver section. As a 16-year-old, I was able to learn from one of the tradesmen the art of solo slaughtering on lambs and sheep. I was able to do that on a weekly wage and, when I got up to the tally—at that time a low tally was 65 carcasses per day—I could then go on to the full-time award. I became a proficient solo slaughterman at 18 years of age, when the tallies in those days were 65 minimum and 80 maximum per day.At that time I was producing in my prime about 100 sucker lambs a day. I was starting at 7.30 in the morning and finishing at three in the afternoon. Because of the heavy lifting that was involved in that process while I was a young man, which also included some heavy lifting of pigs and beef which I learnt as a tally slaughterman, I have long-term physical problems. Apart from the normal dangers of knife stick injuries and cuts, which I have had a considerable number of, I suffer with what is called dry sockets, or the `screws', which means I have no liquid left in the ball-and-socket joints of my two arms because of the heavy lifting I did as a young man. Following on from becoming a proficient solo slaughterman, I took up tally work as a boner and I worked in the boning rooms for two or three years. I then went off to the big city where I became a proficient chain slaughterman on a mechanised system producing 85 carcasses per day as part of a team of 32 slaughtermen on each chain. We processed sheep, calves and beef—when I was on beef—on the chain system. Part of the problem we had with the tally system in those days was that I, like many others, wanted to get out of the place as early as I could, so we turned the speed of the chains up to the point where we started at 7.30 in the morning and we finished our tallies by midday. We completed our tallies extremely quickly. But the effect that had on the workmanship of those particular carcasses in those environments was catastrophic in terms of the economic loss to the abattoir owners themselves, because when you turn chains up to get out quickly not only do you put an enormous amount of pressure on your body physically but you tend to take shortcuts and, when you take shortcuts with knives, you damage hides, skins and carcasses. When the meat processing industry decided that it needed to put more mechanism into the manual labour of slaughtering, it introduced mechanised slaughtering aids such as hide and skin pullers, air operated knives, splitting saws and so on. It did that in an endeavour to make the chain process and the tally system of slaughtering a lot easier for people, and it did to some extent, but it also created a compounding problem.Debate interrupted. Adjournment2119610000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 6 p.m., in accordance with the standing order agreed to on 16 August, I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.2119618:00:0021196Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—Tonight I would like to acknowledge the tremendous work of the Centre for Australian Indigenous Studies at Monash University. The centre is not only a centre for learning and research but also a meeting place. Located at the Clayton Campus of Monash University in my electorate, it is a social centre where the indigenous students can relax, feel at home and get support and counselling from the friendly and accessible, if overworked, staff. Watching the closing ceremony of the Olympic Games reminded me of my visit to the centre during NAIDOC week this year. The strong message of reconciliation from the games is demonstrated daily by the fantastic work of the Centre for Australian Indigenous Studies. The centre educates both indigenous and non- indigenous students about Australian indigenous culture and provides encouragement for indigenous students into higher education via the Monash indigenous access scheme. The Centre for Australian Indigenous Studies had a lot to celebrate in NAIDOC week 2000: a newly founded centre; the introduction of a first-year indigenous studies unit in the Bachelor of Arts course; a recently announced ARC grant of $101,000; in collaboration with other colleagues in the university, the introduction of an indigenous access scheme; three Rio Tinto scholarships for indigenous students in the engineering faculty; and ongoing collaboration work with the medical and law faculties. The centre can also boast a Fulbright postgraduate student Kyllie Cripps. Kyllie is a Monash PhD student, and she was one of two candidates selected to receive a 2000 Fulbright Postgraduate Student Award for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, sponsored by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. As part of her PhD and in affiliation with the University of Arizona, Kyllie will undertake comparative research work among native American communities in Arizona. Her research, through extensive fieldwork in both Australia and the US, will seek to identify, examine and provide a comprehensive analysis of programs that are successfully addressing family violence in indigenous communities. Kyllie was one of 19 Australians to receive an award in 2000 under the auspices of the Australian-American Fulbright Commission. Kyllie was also recognised this year as being one of 30 high achievers in Victoria. Interestingly enough, during the process of that work, she had to explain that she was actually Aboriginal. Being of white skin, she has taken to carrying a photograph of her black mum and dad by way of explanation. The Centre for Australian Indigenous Studies at Monash University is another great example of how the community is leading the Prime Minister on reconciliation. I ask on behalf of the Australian community: why can't he just say sorry? On a note of indulgence, today is the birthday of the beautiful Madeleine Louise: she is one today. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have made this interesting combination of motherhood and parliament that much easier. Without a doubt, I would like to thank the parliamentary staff in this House—the attendants, the cleaners, all those in the Serjeant-at-Arms's Office, and particularly the Comcar drivers, who all know how to install a baby capsule. I would also like to thank, without a doubt, my parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the House who have been absolutely delightful in their support of me. I would also like to thank on this occasion the Speaker for his indulgence on occasions too; my staff in Chisholm, who have been very understanding at times; the folk of Chisholm, my many constituents, who have embraced my daughter marvellously; my mum; my in-laws; my best mate, Steve, without whose support and his taking the year off work none of this would have been at all possible; and, most importantly, my beautiful Madeleine, who is just a delight. Thank you, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I believe that all members of the House and staff of the parliament will want me to extend their appreciation to the member for Chisholm for her sentiments and our best wishes to Madeleine Louise for many happy returns.2119718:04:0021197Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—The recent revelations in the Shepherdson inquiry into electoral roll fraud in Queensland have cast a long grey cloud over activities of the Queensland branch of the Labor Party and its powerful AWU faction. The AWU faction dominates the parliamentary Labor Party in Queensland and is led by the Beattie government self-styled head-kicker, Deputy Premier Jim Elder. Deputy Premier Elder and his mates on the right of the party have for years worked hard to build their numbers and strengthen their position in parliament. Unfortunately for the AWU, things have not been quite the same since it single-handedly steered the Goss government to defeat. In 1995, the Goss government had a 19-seat majority before entering an election that saw it brought within 16 votes of opposition. Six months later, after a by-election in the Townsville based seat of Mundingburra, this 16-vote victory was wiped out, along with Premier Goss and the power base of the AWU. However, it now appears that the Mundingburra by-election was more hard fought than we on the Liberal Party side had first thought. Recent revelations at the Shepherdson inquiry point very strongly to suggestions that Labor, through its AWU operatives, rorted the Mundingburra election in a desperate attempt to stay in power.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Speaker, on a point of order—CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—So sensitive.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Moreton is not assisting.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Any sensitivity I have arises as a result of the standing orders and the rules of procedures. As I understand the position in Queensland, there is an inquiry there by the Criminal Justice Commission in respect of which allegations have been made and evidence is being taken. It seems to me the member has gone directly to some of that evidence and, as a consequence, runs very close to the rule that this House ought not to be engaged in proceedings which might prejudice the outcome of that inquiry.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Mr Speaker, on that point of order: the CJC is not a court; it is an administrative function. The sub judice rule does not apply, and the member is perfectly in order to be raising matters which I can quite understand are embarrassing for the ALP, but indeed freedom of speech must be allowed to be heard. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the minister.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Further to the point of order, the point of order was not predicated on the basis that the inquiry is being conducted by a court. The inquiry is being conducted by a statutory body which has been created by the parliament of Queensland and which will make a report going to the serious allegations that have been made.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Perth will resume his seat. As the Minister for Aged Care has pointed out, in fact the sub judice rule has not in any way been breached by the comments made by the member for Blair. I will listen to his comments. 84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—As a keen observer of the Queensland political scene and as someone closely involved with the Liberal campaign in Mundingburra, I find the allegations that have been made of great concern. The Mundingburra by-election was a tough battle. However, while the Liberals were hard at work knocking on doors and letterbox dropping, the Labor Party were busy knocking off letters and filling out fraudulent enrolments behind closed doors. Unfortunately for Labor, their illegal behaviour was in vain, because the Liberals won Mundingburra and the coalition was returned to government in Queensland.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I understand the member for Blair, he has just made an assertion that people engaged in illegal activity. If he is going to make that comment, he might want to, first, make it under a substantive motion or, secondly, not make it in a way which prejudices an inquiry which is currently under way.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If the member for Blair makes a comment that I believe to be unparliamentary, I will interrupt him.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was not going to raise this, but in fact in amongst all that other activity that has already been raised I would like to add a little point. It is a fact that at the time of all those activities I was working for the then deputy leader of the coalition in Queensland. In fact, after that activity up in Townsville, I remember that there was a call made to the deputy coalition leader's office in which people claimed that they had been bussed from Adelaide by the ALP and had not been paid for their efforts to go to Townsville and vote in the by-election. Those sorts of claims will be around the place and it is not surprising that we see them made.2119818:09:0021198Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—In the adjournment debate this evening I want to raise an important matter in this place relating to full service schools. In my constituency I have a school in the town of Morwell called Kurnai College, which has successfully for the last two years run a full service school program. It is important to bear in mind the history of the full service school program when considering the shutting of this type of program in the context of education.Historically there has been a program run by the Labor Party in government called the STAR Program, which was Students at Risk. It was a program which was put in place between 1993 and 1996 which had around $7 million in it per year, targeting those students who were at risk of not completing year 12. When the coalition came to office, they did not continue the funding for this program and so there was no Commonwealth assistance for activities of this nature in 1997.When the common youth allowances changes were introduced by the coalition, which were expected to increase the number of students at risk staying on at school, the coalition provided $18 million over three years for the full service schools program, which was similar in its essence to Labor's STAR program. The Howard government decided to terminate the full service schools program this year, which I think is known to everyone here.For the record, in certain instances this program has been a great success and it is especially important in areas like Morwell, which has a very high unemployment rate of 18½ per cent and a youth unemployment rate of above 40 per cent. I have received a letter from the campus principal of Kurnai College, Mr Peter Box, who writes to me over his concerns in relation to the stopping of funding for this program. I will not read the entire letter which he sent me but I will quote from it. He says in his letter: The program is characterised by two things:1. Its apparent success2. Its cost-effectivenessIn the case of Kurnai College, we believe that thirty-two students can be identified as being retained at school when they otherwise would have left and this has been done at approximately half of the cost of a teacher per year, ie $25,000.On the one hand you have the cost of running the full service school program at Kurnai College, which is $25,000 per year. On the other hand you have 32 students who would otherwise be unemployed. In an area like the Latrobe Valley it is almost certain that they would be unemployed in the context of us having such a very high youth unemployment rate. So the cost of 32 students at about $150 a week, which would be the unemployment benefit, is around $249,600 per year. So, on the one hand, there is the $25,000 for keeping the program; on the other hand, $250,000, which is the cost of those students going onto unemployment benefits. So I think it is a fairly clear, commonsense comparison to make, and I think most people in the Australian community would say that it would be better to keep those students at school for those extra two years so that they could gain those skills, get more employable and hopefully go on to a job rather than being unemployed.The alternative program at the Maryvale campus of Kurnai College has been designed for students who have been identified as unlikely to succeed in a full VCE course. The aim of the program is to further develop the students' numeracy and literacy skills in preparation for the work force. The program operates over a four-day period for both year 11 and year 12. The remaining day of the week is taken up with work experience, TAFE or Scope courses, and/or VCE courses at the Maryvale campus. The outsourced TAFE and/or Scope courses to run have been determined by the students' interests or needs. There is a lot of variety in this course, and it is something which the students have embraced.I received a letter from one of the students, whom I will not name in the parliament, in relation to this. She writes:To Mr Zahra,I am writing to you as I have been in the Alt program for two year's nearly now and I would have to say that I have learnt more than what I thought I ever would after leaving school in year 10. The Alt program is very beneficial as it has built up my self-esteem, confidence, and has proved me wrong as I did not think that I would ever finish school.The Alt program is also very beneficial as you get more one to one, so they get you ready to go out to the big world with more of an opportunity than those who may not be capable of finishing there vce.I think it would be a shame if there was no funding for the Alt next year as a lot of people would miss out on a great opportunity and not get the support that they really need and that support is exactly what the Alt program gives those who need schooling assistance.Doing the Alt program you also get to do work experience, course's such as hospitality, First aid and they also help you with finding way's to help get you a job for when you leave.I think her sentiments are dead right. (Time expired)2119918:14:0021199Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise tonight to bring to the House's attention another very successful Seize the Day conference. Members may be aware that each year the Frankston cluster of secondary colleges takes a number of students away from each of the colleges to a weekend workshop where we do a range of things, mainly inculcating these students with the key competencies. For those who are not aware of the key competencies, there are seven: collecting, analysing and organising information; communicating ideas and information; planning and organising; working with others and in teams; using mathematical ideas and techniques; solving problems; and using technology. The group involved in organising Seize the Day believes that these transferable capacities are applicable to any type of career path a young person may choose to pursue and also to their broader life and that they complement the academic studies and the VET available in schools and the expanded range of programs at secondary colleges, as a result of the Howard government policies. We believe that these key competencies complement those things very neatly, providing a workplace capacity for young people as they move out into adult life.I have to commend Heather Worrall. Heather used to be a senior staff member at Monterey Secondary College, my former school, but she has now moved over to Patterson River Secondary College. To her credit and to the credit of Bob Stephens, the principal of Patterson River Secondary College, she has taken with her the organising of this weekend.From Frankston High School, we had Grant Frost, Joel Warner, Travis Devalle, Andrew White and Adrian Kirke in attendance. Karingal Park Secondary College was represented by five students: Zsombor Bathy, Eleanor Tregoweth, Meg Beilken, Andrew Van De Beek and Ami Govett. Monterey Secondary College was again well represented with six students: Emma Quigley, Robbie Comfort, Jaime Jenkinson, Elsie Douglas, Glen Tate and Yana Kurpershoek. Mount Eliza Secondary College had three students there: Kerri Pope, Lachlan Mason and Erin Lysaght. Mount Erin Secondary College was represented by Brooke Munday, Craig Wright, Danielle Skelly, Sarah Catlin and Kiel Saunders. Patterson River Secondary College was represented by six students: Erin Shute, Matthew Clark, Christy Treble, Amanda Murphy, Beau Rixon and Deanna McLeod.Those students were treated to a weekend at a conference venue in the Dandenongs, where a number of people from industry freely gave of their time to make presentations and to share with those young people the sorts of challenges and pathways that each of them pursued to achieve success in their lives, in the hope that some of that could be passed on to the students. The students were fortunate in that David Nicolson, Manager of Learning and Organisation Development, BP Australia, was a prominent figure on the weekend, explaining how the key competencies are an everyday part of corporate life in BP Australia and, therefore, connecting the learning experience with the real life workplace.Professor Michael Carr-Gregg provided a presentation at the function. Jenni King, of Post Compulsory Education from the Victorian Department of Education, Employment and Training, also contributed. Hamish Riddell, from the Australian Retailers Association, talked about careers in retailing. We also had Emma Viskic, who is a professional musician—a frightfully talented lady—sharing the toils of being a professional musician. Keith White was there from Lavender Hill Multimedia. We also had, from the colleges concerned, Heather Worrall, whom I have mentioned; Robert Sutton from Mount Erin Secondary College; Robert Stephens; Sue Robinson from Mount Eliza Secondary College; Bruce Parish from Karingal Park Secondary College; Roger Page from Mount Erin Secondary College; David Kidd from Frankston High School; and Peter Hubble, who is a prominent character at these weekends.The whole exercise of people from the professional world sharing their career experiences with these young people helped the young people to think about their goals in life, about the pathways that are available to them and how there are stepping stones that each of them can pursue to achieve fulfilment in their lives. Hopefully, from the presentations that were provided, they will learn a bit from our mistakes and from those who are already out there, about how to develop their networks, draw from the experience of others and develop their key competencies—the things that employers are looking for not only in the school environment but outside of school as well. They can develop a very attractive kitbag of capacity that they can take with them into adult life and into the work force.I am delighted to have again sponsored this event. It is a great credit to the Patterson River Secondary College and all the participating secondary colleges from the Frankston area. This is a very worthwhile initiative, and I hope that the young people who were fortunate enough to participate in it grasp the opportunities with both hands and make a real go out of the learning that was available from the weekend. Congratulations to all who were involved. We are looking forward to seeing these individuals from the Dunkley electorate—these young people, oozing talent and capacity—making a very substantial contribution not only to our own community but to the nation's life in the years to come. (Time expired)2120118:19:0021201Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—This evening I would like to raise again the issue of cystic fibrosis, CF, and the related issue of the carers allowance which, until July 1998, constituted a fortnightly payment and a Healthcare card for the sufferer. Since my election, I have come into contact with two families in my electorate of Lowe who have a CF sufferer and who have been discriminated against by the policy change of the government with regard to the carers allowance. One of these families are Drummoyne residents Ron and Suzanne Ford and their daughter Amelia, who has CF. My wife, Adriana, and I met Ron, Suzanne and Amelia when they attended my electorate office a few months ago. We were made aware of the level of devotion required from parents and carers to help a CF child in order to provide them with the best quality of life possible. Caring for a CF child is a 24-hour a day job. Make no mistake: the workload is immense and the expenses associated with caring for a CF sufferer are considerable.What exactly is CF? CF is a severe, incurable genetic disease which finally leads to the sufferer's death from complications caused by the disease. The disease mainly affects the lungs, making normal secretions thick and sticky, leading to repeated lung infections and eventually to respiratory failure. CF also affects the gastrointestinal system, with the result that CF sufferers must take enzyme supplements with their food to aid digestion. My colleague the member for Braddon, who is sitting with me today, has been a champion of this particular issue and has raised the issue of the carers allowance for this terrible disease a number of times in this chamber. He said in the House on 10 March 1999:... each day of care involves several rounds of home based physiotherapy and nebuliser treatment, dietary supplementation, exhaustive provision of enzymes and their monitoring.In the case of many CF sufferers, there are also other illnesses to cope with, including diabetes and asthma. A daily management routine requires total dedication to ensure that the correct dosages and preparations are administered appropriately and on time. Not just anyone is able to do this task: even family and friends may have difficulty understanding and catering for the complex needs of a CF child.I would also mention that the emotional and physical impact on the family of the CF child is tremendous. The average life expectancy of a child with CF used to be five years, but in Australia it has now increased to 30 years due to medical advances and improvements in care for CF sufferers. The main factor in the increase of life expectancy is the care and management that devoted parents and carers give to their children. However, the carers allowance, which was abolished in July 1998, has also played a part in increasing the life expectancy of those with CF. Ron and Suzanne Ford recently wrote to me and said: We find it ironic that the very allowance that created an environment of proper care has been cancelled due to the good results received. The life expectancy of CF children will now decline as many parents in lesser financial circumstances will be unable to provide the care needed.During the review process in 1998, the then Department of Social Security advised that seven chronic medical conditions, including CF, were being proposed for automatic inclusion to receive the carers allowance. However, in the final result, all but CF were included. For no apparent reason, the functional assessment tool, the test used by the department to measure eligibility for the carers allowance, continues to deny the families of CF sufferers the child allowance. Be assured, Mr Speaker, that the allowance of $75.10 per fortnight which assisted parents prior to July 1998—those who were recipients prior to this date will still be eligible for the allowance until 2003—would have made reaching the quality of life we all enjoy more likely for children who suffer this chronic disease. But, as far as heartless Minister Newman and the Department of Family and Community Services are concerned, CF is no longer considered a disability or a chronic medical condition. This $75.10 per fortnight does not even begin to cover the many expenses associated with caring for a child with CF. On 15 March 2000 in this House, on behalf of my Abbottsford constituents Paul and Annette Cahill, whose son Paul suffers from CF, I called on the members of the government to reverse the evil decision made by Minister Newman and allow the families of CF sufferers to access the child allowance. Tonight, on behalf of children like Paul and Amelia who suffer from this terrible disease, I once again call on the government to reverse the decision and give these children an opportunity to lead a higher quality of life, not to make victims of them. The member for Braddon, who is sitting here and supporting me tonight and, as I said earlier, has championed this issue, has pointed out to me the absurdity of the government's mean-spirited policy on CF. It is demonstrated by the conclusion that parents who lovingly do everything for a child suffering with CF make their chances of getting a carers allowance more remote, but if they neglect the child their prospect of receiving the allowance increases proportionately. This is disgraceful, and the government should be flogged on the issue.2120218:24:0021202Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—Last weekend, on Saturday, 7 October 2000, I had the privilege of attending a dinner celebrating the 25th anniversary of Vietnamese settlement in South Australia. The Vietnamese Christian Community Centre at Pooraka, situated in my electorate of Makin, was an ideal location to celebrate this significant anniversary. Those present included the Governor of South Australia, his excellency Sir Eric Neal; Lady Neal; my parliamentary colleagues, most especially the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Neil Andrew MP, member for Wakefield; the honourable member for Adelaide, Trish Worth; the state member for Unley and Minister for Employment, Water, Resources and Youth Affairs, Mark Brindal, representing the Premier of South Australia, John Olsen; the Mayor of the City of Salisbury, Mr Tony Zappia, and his wife Viki; and various Vietnamese, religious and community leaders, especially Father Augustine, Sister Elizabeth and Mr Son Van Nguyen, who is president of the Vietnamese Christian community in South Australia. We all joined in the Prime Minister's message of congratulations to the Vietnamese Christian community on the occasion of the 25th anniversary.The tireless work of Sister Elizabeth and Father Augustine, stalwarts of the South Australian Vietnamese community, was appropriately recognised on the evening. Guests were treated to an evening of reminiscing, entertainment and traditional Vietnamese culture in the form of traditional costume, song, dance and music. The evening featured a dedicated group of talented performers who provided a display that was as rich in culture as it was enjoyable. The function was an overwhelming success, and I appreciate the honour of attending as an invited guest, especially to participate in the modelling of the national Vietnamese dress—which I do have on even as I speak—as did the federal member for Adelaide, the Hon. Trish Worth.The Vietnamese community has made an invaluable contribution to South Australia through its culture, customs and social activities. As well, the Vietnamese Christian community in South Australia embodies this and works together with the wider community to improve networks, provide support for families and maintain ties with the traditional culture and activities. The Vietnamese Christian community in South Australia has acted as a vital focal point and link mechanism for those adjusting to a new country and a new way of life. It was an honour and a pleasure to be involved in the 25th anniversary celebrations, and I thank the Vietnamese community for this privilege. I congratulate each and every individual who is part of the Vietnamese settlement in South Australia for their wonderful contribution. While I would like to acknowledge that the Vietnamese community in Pooraka in my electorate of Makin are progressing well with the development of their local soccer fields, I would also like to encourage them to take up the challenge of developing football fields that will hopefully unearth future Adelaide Crows players from our Vietnamese community to play for South Australia. In closing, I would like to thank the Speaker of the House of Representatives for taking the opportunity to attend what was a very special occasion in my electorate of Makin, as it was a great honour to have both you and your charming wife, Carolyn, to join in celebrating the 25th anniversary of Vietnamese settlement in South Australia.Question resolved in the affirmative.18:28:0021203House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing21204The following answers to questions were circulated:21204(Question No. 1778)177821204Hatton, Michael, MPMr HattonLN6BlaxlandALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 14 August 2000: (1) Is the Minister's Department and agencies within the Minister's portfolio compliant in respect of the Goods and Services Tax. (2) What action did the Minister's Department and agencies within the Minister's portfolio take to ensure that they were GST ready by 1 July 2000. (3) Is the Minister able to guarantee that no agency within the Minister's portfolio will suffer negative impacts on its budget or services due to the GST; if not, or if the guarantee was subsequently proved incorrect, would the Minister be prepared to resign.21204Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised that my portfolio is compliant. (2) GST compliance within the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA), the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) and the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) has been achieved through a comprehensive implementation program that commenced in August 1999. The implementation was monitored and guided by a high level taskforce that included representatives from across key areas of DIMA, the MRT and the RRT. The Taskforce met on a regular basis and periodically briefed the Departmental executive and myself. In addition to the internal management and monitoring of the implementation, the Department of Finance and Administration (DOFA) monitored the progress of all agencies in implementation of the GST. DOFA's monitoring was undertaken over the period from November 1999 to May 2000 via a series of comprehensive questionnaires and interviews. DOFA assessed progress on implementation from these questionnaires and interviews and reported the findings to me and each of the agency's chief executive officers. During May 2000, DIMA engaged a consultant to assess the preparedness of its business and IT systems to cope with the GST, and to make recommendations of enhancements required to achieve GST compliance where any deficiencies were identified. The consultant reported in mid June that if DIMA's implementation program continued as planned, DIMA would achieve compliance by 1 July 2000. (3) The implementation and ongoing management of tax reforms by DIMA, the RRT and the MRT is the responsibility of their respective chief executive officers. While the Government will continue to monitor the impact of the implementation of The New Tax System, the reforms are not expected to reduce the level of funding of these agencies in real terms.21204(Question No. 1781)178121204Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 August 2000: (1) Did he ask for a report from Navy about the allegations in the Bulletin article of 16 May 2000 concerning an alleged cover up about the four deaths on HMAS Westralia; if so, (a) when and (b) what were the details requested of Navy. (2) Has the report been provided to him; if so, when; if not, why not. (3) Will he make the report publicly available; if so, when; if not, why not. (4) Has he taken action on the report; if so, what; if not, why not.21204Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (a) 10 May 2000. (b) Information was requested on alleged deficiencies in administration and training. (2) Yes. The report was provided on 11 May 2000. (3) The issues highlighted in the Bulletin article were addressed by the Chief of Navy in a letter to the editor of the Bulletin magazine and this was published in the edition of 23 May 2000. An article was also published in the Navy News newspaper. The Chief of Navy kept Navy members aware of the allegations via a Navy-wide signal entitled `Unsubstantiated Allegations in the Bulletin 16 May EDN - HMAS WESTRALIA Tragedy'. (4) Yes. The issues of deficiencies in administration are being addressed following the commissioning of the Trotter Report, that investigated systemic deficiencies in administration and training in the RAN. The recommendations of this report are still being implemented and are the subject of Ministerial reports every two months.21205(Question No. 1820)182021205McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 August 2000:(1) Are civil marriage celebrants continuing to be appointed without any formal requirements for professional accreditation.(2) What steps is he taking to promote among existing celebrants and new celebrants existing courses on civil celebrancy offered by Monash University and the Australian College of Civil Celebrancy.(3) What barriers exist to recognising the Australian College of Celebrancy and Monash University courses on civil celebrancy as approved providers of training to civil celebrants and prospective civil celebrants.(4) When will he introduce legislation to give legal effect to the draft code of practice he issued in December 1999.21205Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, civil marriage celebrants are continuing to be authorised under the existing guidelines pending completion of the current review of the celebrants program which encompasses options for professional accreditation. (2) It is not appropriate for the Government to promote any existing school of celebrancy while a review is being conducted. To do so might predetermine the findings of the review. (3) The review will examine the issue of whether it is appropriate to recognise training schools or improve standards through other options. (4) The draft code of practice was issued for community consultation as part of the current review. Legislative changes required to implement changes flowing from the review will be introduced after the review is finalised. 21205(Question No. 1848)184821205McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 August 2000: (1) In the period January 1998 to August 2000 how many staff of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) were offered redundancy. (2) What criteria were applied and what reasons did staff give in accepting redundancy. (3) How many DPP staff were employed in the same period. (4) What are the details of staff recruitment campaigns for the DPP in that period. (5) Were staff made redundant at the same time as the DPP was recruiting new staff; if so why.21205Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 36 (2) The following provisions, which are contained in the Appendix to the CDPP Certified Agreement 1998-2000, were applied to determine if an employee was excess: (i) The employee is included in a class of employees employed in the CDPP, which class comprises a greater number of employees than is necessary for the efficient and economical working of the CDPP; (ii) The services of the employee cannot be used effectively because of technological or other changes in the work methods of the CDPP or changes in the nature, extent or organisation of the functions of the CDPP; or (iii)Where the duties usually performed by the employee are to be performed at a different locality, the employee is not willing to perform duties at the locality and the Director has determined that these provisions will apply to that employee. (iv) In addition, the following criteria was used in cases where the number of employees expressing an interest in a voluntary redundancy exceeded the numbers determined in excess by the DPP: (v) The employee's potential for future performance and development, particularly in a constantly changing work environment, including the ability to cope with change, technological developments and associated work demands; (vi) Current performance as assessed by supervisors and provided in writing; (vii) Current level of skill and motivation. Staff provided reasons in accordance with the above criteria. (3) 71 (4) Recruiting in the smaller DPP offices was on a needs basis. In the larger two Offices, Sydney and Melbourne, recruitment campaigns to fill several positions at various levels were conducted throughout the period. (5) Since January 1998, 115 staff (including the 36 staff who left by way of voluntary redundancy) have left the DPP. During that period 71 staff have been recruited leaving a net reduction in staffing of 44. Recruitment occurred at lower levels in order to reprofile the Office.21206(Question No. 1863)186321206Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 August 2000: (1) Has the term of Mr John Spender as Special Australian Envoy on the Cyprus issue, been completed; if not, what has Mr Spender achieved to date on this issue; if so, has Mr Spender provided a report to the Government on his achievements during his term as Special Envoy. (2) If reports from Mr Spender are available, will he make a statement to Parliament or publicly release the reports. (3) What other information does the Government have from its UN Mission and from other Australian diplomatic posts on the latest developments on the Cyprus Issue. (4) What information does he have as to whether the recent proximity talks in Geneva have achieved any positive outcome.21206Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) No. In accordance with the terms of his appointment, Mr Spender has regularly reported to the Government on developments regarding the Cyprus issue. Mr Spender has undertaken extensive consultations with members of the Greek and Turkish communities in Australia, in North America and Europe, including in Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, and with others in the international community involved in pursuing resolution of the Cyprus issue. He has discussed possible Australian support for a negotiated settlement through the good offices of an Australian constitutional expert. (2) There are no plans for me to make a report to Parliament on Mr Spender's activities as Special Envoy. His reports to the Government remain confidential at this time. (3) The Government receives regular reporting from the Australian High Commission in Cyprus, the UN mission in New York and from other Australian diplomatic posts on developments relating to the Cyprus issue including progress in the UN-sponsored proximity talks. (4) While the proximity talks held in Geneva in July-August 2000 did not make any appreciable progress, the parties agreed to continue their discussions. A new round of talks commenced in New York on 12 September 2000. The Government has urged the parties to show the goodwill and spirit of compromise necessary to lead to a negotiated settlement.21207(Question No. 1864)186421207Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 28 August 2000: (1) Is his Department or its contracted agents required by law to provide detainees with information regarding their rights. (2) Has his attention been drawn to claims by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission that detainees' oral and written requests for legal assistance have been ignored. (3) Has his attention been drawn to claims by Amnesty International, given in evidence to a parliamentary inquiry, that a detainee had been denied telephone access to a lawyer. (4) Is it in accordance with Australia's international human rights obligations for detainees to not have access to legal assistance until they specifically ask for it.21207Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) All immigration cleared non-citizens taken into detention must be made aware of their eligibility to apply for a visa in accordance with s.194 of the Migration Act. They are also informed as soon as possible of their right to legal and consular assistance. In accordance with s.193, the Department is not required to advise unauthorised arrivals - that is unlawful non citizens who have not been immigration cleared or refused or bypassed immigration clearance - of their ability to apply for a visa. (2) Given the limited information provided in the honourable member's question I have not been able to ascertain which claims he is referring to. (3) I am aware that from time to time various people and organisations make such claims. I am advised however, that to date none of these claims have been substantiated. (4) Section 256 of the Migration Act makes provision for access to legal advice by persons in immigration detention where the person in detention requests legal advice. Our legal advice is that the Migration Act, taken together with Australia's relevant practices, does not breach Australia's international obligations.21207(Question No. 1865)186521207Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 28 August 2000: (1) Has his attention been drawn to allegations about the use of physical restraint and sedation in the removal of people from Australia. (2) What safeguards are in place to prevent the mistreatment of people being removed from Australia. (3) Is he able to say whether the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee recommended in its report A Sanctuary Under Review that appropriate protocols be developed between carriers and contract removal services providers and that these protocols, and the implementation of them, should be subject to audit by an external and independent body (Recommendation 10.3); if so, should similar standards be applied to the provision of detention services. (4) What safeguards exist against possible abuses and what control does his Department retain when services such as these are outsourced.21208Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follow: (1) Yes. (2) Australian law requires that persons who have established no lawful basis to remain in Australia must be removed from Australia as soon as practicable. Every effort is made by my Department to ensure that removal procedures are not unnecessarily stressful for the individuals concerned and that removals occur under conditions of maximum dignity for the removees. That objective can be undermined when removees choose to resort to dangerous or unacceptable behaviour. In a relatively small number of cases removees behave aggressively, threaten self-harm or by their actions impose a danger to the travelling public. These behaviours are generally intended to prevent a removal occurring and are addressed with appropriately graduated responses which can include the lawful application of physical restraints. The provisions of the Crimes Aviation Act 1991 (Schedule 4 Article 6) authorise the commander of an aircraft to take reasonable measures including restraint which are necessary to protect the safety of an aircraft or of persons or property therein or to maintain good order and discipline on board. At times circumstances may arise during a flight when a pilot will direct that a person be restrained (which may involve the use of medication). (3) To the first part of this question my answer is; “Yes”. The second part of the question deals with the standards which apply to the provision of detention services. The provision of detention services in all detention facilitiesmust meet the requirements of a set of Immigration Detention Standards. These standards set out the service provider's obligations to meet the individual care needs of detainees in a culturally appropriate way, while at the same time providing safe and secure detention. The Immigration Detention Standards were formulated in consultation with the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office and ensure consistency with Australia's international treaty obligations. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs' (DIMA) immigration detention centres are continually subject to scrutiny from external agencies. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office have conducted visits to detention centres in recent months. Both agencies commented positively on their findings and noted significant improvements in detention facilities and services and in the quality of life for detainees. Similarly, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration has indicated its satisfaction with the state of facilities and the welfare of detainees, following recent visits to detention centres. (4) DIMA's contracted provider of detention services, Australasian Correctional Management Pty Ltd (ACM), is required under principles set out in the Immigration Detention Standards, to act at all times in a manner consistent with relevant State and Commonwealth law. Departmental officers are located at all immigration detention centres and provide on site monitoring of activities at each site. There is a robust performance management regime involving sanction and rewards under the contractual arrangements between my Department and ACM.21208(Question No. 1871)187121208Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 August 2000: (1) Is he able to confirm the accuracy of the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) report on 31 July regarding his visit to Iran which quoted him as saying “Despite all these rumours I closely witnessed the trend of democracy in the Islamic Republic of Iran which impressed me very much”. (2) Is he able to confirm the successful test in Iran of the Shahab 3 missile on 15-16 July 2000 which allegedly has a range of 1300 miles and can carry an 800kg warhead; if so, is he able to say whether the technology for this missile was provided by either China or North Korea. (3) Whilst in Iran did he raise the danger Tehran's acquisition of an offensive missile capacity represents to regional peace.21209Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) I cannot confirm the exact words used by the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) report on 31 July. I was impressed during my visit, however, by the commitment to upholding democratic practice that was expressed by a range of Iranian Ministers and parliamentarians. I welcomed that commitment. (2) Iran successfully tested the Shahab 3 missile, which has a range of 1300 kilometres and can carry a one tonne payload, on 15 July 2000. Iran has reportedly developed the Shahab 3 with the assistance of North Korea and Russia. (3) Yes.21209(Question No. 1872)187221209Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 29 August 2000: (1) Were a Mr and Mrs Berisha included in the 15 Kosovars who were deported from Port Hedland Detention Centre on 22 August 2000; if so, (a) does Mr Berisha suffer from emphysema, (b) was Mrs Berisha taking medication following the removal of a brain tumour and (c) did either have immediate family or a home to return to in Kosovo. (2) Did any of the 15 Kosovars have trauma assessments prior to their forced deportation from Port Hedland. (3) Did the Australian Kosovar Support Network meet with Senator Kay Paterson as his representative; if so, did she agree to pass on the Network's requests that the Kosovars receive trauma assessments; if not, why not. (4) If Senator Patterson's request for trauma assessments was being processed, why were the Kosovars deported before this process was concluded.21209Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Mr Samein Berisha and Mrs Qefsere Berisha were among the 12 Kosovars removed from Australia on 22 August 2000. (a) and (b) I am reluctant to divulge detailed medical information of this nature without the express permission of the persons concerned. The disclosure of this information would, but for parliamentary privilege, be in breach of the Privacy Act. (c) I am not aware whether the Berisha family had immediate family or a home to return to in Kosovo. Arrangements put in place with the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) for the return of this group included capacity for temporary transit accommodation in Pristina. In addition IOM had a capacity to provide limited material on their departure from transit accommodation in Pristina. (2) A comprehensive range of torture and trauma and general counselling services were available to all Kosovars in the safe havens. The extent to which individuals utilised these services varied depending on their needs and circumstances. Counselling services were also available in the Port Hedland Immigration Reception and Processing Centre (IRPC) for the Kosovars who were removed on 22 August. At least one Kosovar detainee took the opportunity to receive professional counselling assistance. In the context of the overall Kosovar safe haven exercise, the Government has taken appropriate action to respond to cases where trauma has been identified. In my Media Release (MPS 069/2000) of 28 June 2000, I announced that where issues of post traumatic stress disorder had been raised and substantiated through professional advice, I would be making regulations to allow for a new temporary visa to provide for three years' stay in Australia. (3) Senator Patterson met with members of the Australian Kosovar Support Network (AKSN) on 3 August 2000. The AKSN agreed to forward to me their request concerning Kosovars in detention. Senator Patterson communicated the AKSN request to me. (4) I received a number of requests from the persons concerned and also from third parties seeking to allow them to remain in Australia for a longer period. All those requests were considered and addressed. None of the information provided to me was of a nature which warranted the grant of further visas to the persons concerned.21210(Question No. 1891)189121210Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 30 August 2000: (1) What plans are held for the Northam Army Barracks, WA. (2) Will the Barracks be sold; if so, (a) how will the sale proceed and (b) will the Barracks be offered for private sale to local tourist interests or to a particular local authority. (3) What is the (a) total area and (b) estimated value of the land involved.21210Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The 1997 Defence Reform Program identified the Northam Army Camp for potential disposal, subject to examining the feasibility, cost and benefit of the recommendation. (2) Planning will be undertaken to determine the viability of relocating the current operations from Northam Camp to another Defence site in Western Australia. Should it be determined that the Camp is surplus to requirements, the property will be prepared for disposal. (a) In developing a disposal strategy, a number of preliminary activities, including the planning activities and a heritage assessment, will need to be undertaken. As part of this process, the Department of Defence will consult with the Shire of Northam and other interested parties concerning the future of the property. (b) The method of disposal is yet to be determined. (3) (a) Northam Army Camp is approximately 202 hectares. (b) A current valuation has not been undertaken of the site. Defence will seek a market valuation once all necessary assessents have been completed and the property is ready for disposal.21210(Question No. 1900)190021210McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay4I4WatsonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 31 August 2000:Does his Department keep a central record of all property utilised by Ministers, Members and Senators.21210Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Department of Finance and Administration does not keep a central record of all property utilised by Ministers, Members and Senators. The Ministerial and Parliamentary Services Group of the Department holds details of the electorate offices and Ministerial 0ffice holder accommodation which it provides. No record is kept of any accommodation which may be provided to Ministers by their own Department or of electorate offices which are privately funded by Senators and Members.21210(Questions Nos 1928, 1929 and 1930)1928, 1929 and 193021210Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 September 2000: (1) Did Australia's 3 November 1999 statement to the UN Human Rights Committee state that the UN treaty body system contributes significantly and directly to the protection and promotion of human rights by monitoring implementation of the core human rights treaties, highlighting violations of these treaties and human rights standards, interpreting the rights and obligations contained in the treaties and encouraging better implementation and compliance through advice to the States. (2) Has the performance and function of this committee altered to such an extent to warrant Australia's withdrawal from this treaty committee. (3) Will Australia's recent announcement to retreat from such committees provide an excuse for other nations, especially those with worse human rights records, to do likewise. (4) How will ceasing cooperation with this body create some positive real change within the treaty body itself. (5) How will a reduction in Australia's standards of human rights be prevented as a result of ending cooperation with these international human rights bodies.21211Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) Yes. More significantly, however, the statement went on to state, and I quote, “nevertheless, the system is under increasing strain. If not addressed, our Governments believe that these difficulties may jeopardise the effectiveness and credibility of the treaty bodies. These bodies are faced with increasing numbers of reports and communications to consider against a background of reduced or static resources.” The statement also noted a report submitted in 1997 by Professor Phillip Alston which demonstrated the significant growth in the committees' workload. For example, in 1989, 646 reports were overdue. In 1993 that number had increased to 714, by 1997 to 957, and by 1999 to 1,146. The statement then went on make several practical recommendations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the committees. These included the allocation of greater resources to support the committees, the adoption by the committees of a more focused approach to their work, the provision of shorter, more focused reports by states parties, international assistance for countries that have identified a need for assistance to improve their capacity to report to treaty bodies, and closer cooperation between states parties and the UN system. (2) The Government has not, I repeat not, withdrawn Australia from its obligations to the Human Rights Committee under Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or from any of its other international human rights obligations. The Government's review of the UN treaty body system has resulted in a determination by the Government to intensify its efforts to work with like-minded countries and within the UN system to achieve much-needed reform of the treaty committees. This is essential in order to ensure that the work of the committees continues to be relevant to their mandate of assisting states parties to meet their obligations, and that they accord due weight and respect to submissions from democratically elected governments which, such as Australia, have excellent human rights records. As announced on 29 August, the Government will develop a high level diplomatic initiative with Ministerial leadership, together with more strategic use of meetings of states parties, to address our concerns. The Government will establish a standing inter-departmental committee jointly chaired by my Department and the Attorney-General's Department to progress reform of the treaty committee system and coordinate future interaction with the treaty committees. (3) See answer to (2). (4) See answer to (2). (5) See answer to (2).