2000-10-303917REPS2156102000-10-30—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Delegation Reports215612156112:31:0021561Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Observer Delegation to the Parliamentary Elections in Zimbabwe, 24 to 25 June 2000. It was a great privilege for me to be a representative of this House as part of the Australian delegation to Zimbabwe to observe the parliamentary elections. The members of that delegation included Senator Alan Ferguson, who was the leader of the delegation, Senator Andrew Murray, Mr Russell Chafer, who was the delegation secretary from the House of Representatives, Mr Bala Chettur from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Ross McKay, who was the Australian Electoral Commission representative, and a number of other members, including Ms Julie Bishop, the member for Curtin, and Senator Sandy Macdonald.Australia's strong system of representative democracy and its effective administration of elections have been acknowledged internationally for many years. Australian officials and members of parliament are frequently called on to observe the conduct of elections overseas. I am pleased that the Australian parliament was able to send observers to Zimbabwe's parliamentary elections held on 24 and 25 June. The elections were witnessed by 300 international observers, in addition to the parliament's delegation. After three days of intensive briefings in Harare, our delegation split up into three teams which spent between four and six days in the provinces of Zimbabwe, including the polling days on Saturday and Sunday and the counting day on Monday, 26 June. We made a point of visiting some of the more remote areas of the country, as well as the main population centres. The areas we visited are listed in the report.The elections were held against a backdrop of civil unrest, including the occupation of the commercial farms by veterans of Zimbabwe's liberation war, and escalating violence and intimidation, particularly in rural areas, in the months preceding the election. In common with most international observers, we have no doubt that the pre-election violence was intended to ensure the re-election of President Mugabe's ZANU-PF party. In the 20 years since Zimbabwe was formed, ZANU-PF has grown accustomed to running the country as a one-party state. The ruling party received a rude shock in February this year when its draft constitution was rejected at a national referendum. The draft constitution, which would have enabled the government to seize commercial farms without compensation, had been opposed by the newly-formed Movement for Democratic Change, as well as by civil society organisations under the umbrella of the National Constitutional Assembly.Shortly after the referendum, the invasions of commercial farms by war veterans and their supporters began. The invasions heralded a breakdown in the rule of law in Zimbabwe and a bid to crush dissent against the rule of ZANU-PF before the elections. The rhetoric of the ruling party—repeated endlessly in Zimbabwe's state controlled electronic media and in the state controlled Herald daily newspaper—condemned the opposition MDC as enemies of the state merely for challenging the power of President Mugabe and ZANU-PF. The application of this rhetoric was devastating. Over 30 people were murdered, most of them supporters of the MDC. The delegation met with many non-government candidates and supporters who had been forced into hiding in the weeks before the election.Our delegation met with an MDC party agent who had been physically assaulted two days before polling commenced—there is a photo of that person in the report. We also witnessed widespread intimidation by war veterans of farmers and their workers in the form of directions to the workers as to where they were to vote and for whom. Quite obviously, all this had a stifling effect on freedom of association, election campaigning and voter education. We have no doubt that the violence and intimidation of the pre-election period must have influenced the result in some constituencies. A particularly unfortunate aspect of the violence was the indifference shown by Zimbabwe's once respected police force. The police effectively ignored an order from Zimbabwe's courts that the farm occupations were illegal and thereafter did as little as possible to control the behaviour of the war veterans and ZANU-PF operatives. This contrasts markedly with the visible police presence at every polling and counting station we visited, which contributed greatly to the generally peaceful conduct of voting and counting on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, 24 to 26 June. Thankfully, we were told by virtually all the people we visited that the presence of international observers contributed to a more peaceful environment in the days immediately before and during the weekend poll. Despite witnessing some incidents of intimidation, we were generally satisfied with the orderly conduct of the voting on 24 and 25 June and with the counting of votes on Monday, 26 June. Inevitably we noticed some irregularities but, from our observations, we did not think those irregularities were widespread. At the polling stations we visited it would have been very difficult to tamper with the vote in any significant way. Multiple voting did not appear to be a factor. We were also of the opinion that the vote was accurately, if slowly, counted on the Monday in a very public process. This is not to suggest that the administration of the election was satisfactory. The conduct of the voting was hampered by inconsistent procedures and the last-minute nature of many important election preparations. The preparations were not helped by a power struggle in the weeks leading up to the election between the Electoral Supervisory Commission and the office of Zimbabwe's Registrar-General.The accuracy and availability of the electoral rolls were criticised by many people we spoke to during our observations. Several polling stations we visited on the first day of voting had still not received supplementary rolls which contained the names of people who had registered late. It is likely that many registered voters were denied a vote as a consequence. As I was saying earlier, more seriously, many people had registered to vote but their names did not appear on the published rolls and they were turned away from polling stations despite producing a receipt. In some polling stations I visited in the Midlands province, the only party polling agents credited, for example, to oversee elections were those representing the ZANU-PF party. With no non-government polling agents and no domestic monitors, safeguards against intimidation and electoral fraud were obviously limited. At one polling station we observed a gentleman wandering up and down the line of people waiting to vote with a large wooden club. Whilst he would not state what party he was from, it was fairly obvious from what was happening. The woman who was admitting people through the gate refused to identify herself as being from any particular party, but she was not an accredited observer. So there are obviously some inconsistencies there. President Mugabe was not standing for election on this occasion. A separate presidential election will be held in 2002. The international community will watch the lead-up to that election with great interest. International observers, including from Zimbabwe, have always been welcome to attend Australian elections and we would encourage a continuing exchange of views on the practice of democratic elections. On behalf of the delegation, I would like to thank our High Commissioner to Zimbabwe, Her Excellency Mrs Denise Fisher, as well as Ms Jenny Dee and the other staff at the High Commission for their outstanding support at very short notice. I also extend our gratitude to the many brave people of Zimbabwe who, under very stressful circumstances, found the time to assist us. We wish them well for the future. On a personal note I would also like to thank Mr Bala Chettur from Foreign Affairs who attended with me.12:39:0021562Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I trust this is also an opportune time to report to the House on the Commonwealth observer group that included representatives from this parliament, which also received accreditation to observe the parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe. I was part of the advance group of six Commonwealth representatives. Senator Sandy Macdonald and former Senator David MacGibbon were part of the observer team that attended the actual election process in Zimbabwe. It is worth reflecting that Australia and Zimbabwe are both members of the Commonwealth and that the Commonwealth has a formal charter, interestingly called the Harare Commonwealth Declaration 1991. The formal charter, which was entered into and agreed to by all of the 54 countries in the Commonwealth, states that its principles are to protect and to promote the Commonwealth's fundamental political values, which include democracy, democratic processes and institutions, which reflect national circumstances, rule of law, just and honest government, and fundamental human rights, including equal rights and opportunities. It is against that background that the Commonwealth observer team was requested by President Mugabe to be in Zimbabwe for the duration of the parliamentary elections. The experience of the Commonwealth observer team was indeed similar to that of the Australian parliamentary observer group and our findings were somewhat similar. I will not read out the whole of the Commonwealth report; it is at www.thecommonwealth.org. It is also important to think a little about the history of Zimbabwe and how it has ended up in these quite tragic circumstances. There are two very large ethnic groups in Zimbabwe: the Shona people, which is the largest ethnic group comprising over 70 per cent and which settled in Zimbabwe many thousands of years ago; and the Ndebele people, who settled about 200 or more years ago. It was in 1890 that settlers of the British South Africa Company under Cecil Rhodes settled in what was then Southern Rhodesia. That brought an influx of white farmers from the United Kingdom, and also from South Africa, who farmed vast tracts of land. The United Kingdom took over self-government of Southern Rhodesia in 1923, and there was a dispute in the 1960s about this. It was in 1965 that Ian Smith's hardline party, the Rhodesian Front, declared independence from Britain. That was a unilateral declaration of independence.It was at about this time that the black African majority organised themselves into political movements, went underground and waged guerrilla warfare against Smith's regime. Of course, one black African group, ZANU, was led by Robert Mugabe. There was a huge conflict which led to Smith establishing a government, but it failed. In 1979 all of the parties came together to end the war of independence, as it was called, under a forum by Lord Carrington, who was the British foreign affairs minister at the time. They met at Lancaster House in London. It was a 14-week meeting which ended in a peace agreement. It was a cease-fire to end Smith's government, and a British transitional government was installed until there could be a free and fair election held. There are those words again: a `free and fair' election, which was precisely the Commonwealth's concern some 20 years later. An election was held for the independence of the country and there were 80 African seats. Mugabe's ZANU-PF, which was essentially a Shona based party, won 57 seats. ZAPU, which was the Ndebele party, won 20. There were three for the United Africa Party and Ian Smith's Rhodesian Front won all of the 20 seats reserved for whites. In April 1980 Zimbabwe became independent and Robert Mugabe was installed as Prime Minister and Reverend Banana was President. In the 1990s, of course, the economy started going into decline. There were strikes for improved conditions and President Mugabe, as he then became, turned to land reform to bolster votes. This led to a great deal of unrest among the people and a new political party, the Movement for Democratic Change, was formed in September 1999. In February 2000, President Mugabe's ZANU-PF wanted the people to vote to change the 1979 Lancaster House constitution. The ZANU-PF assumed a win but were shocked when the proposed change was defeated by a vote of 54.7 per cent of the population to 45.3 per cent, on a 20 per cent turn-out. The government accused the opposition party of a white conspiracy and a lot of violence was unleashed. The courts ruled that the farm occupations by the so-called war of independence veterans were illegal. President Mugabe ignored this and dismissed parliament in April; therefore, fresh elections had to be held within four months. On 2 May, a meeting of the ministerial action group of Commonwealth ministers, including Australia, condemned the violence that had occurred, the loss of life and the fact that there was no rule of law. They insisted there be a free and fair election and called for Commonwealth observers to be sent in as soon as possible. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for consideration of this report has expired.Committees21564215642156412:45:0021564Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled Australian government loan to Papua New Guinea, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.MH4Jull, David, MPMr JULL—The report that I have just tabled is important for two reasons. Firstly, it represents parliamentary involvement in the scrutiny of this loan. This is significant and something that the committee supports. Secondly, the legislation that prompted this report and the timing of the tabling of the document about the loan have both caused some concern to the committee. I propose to talk about the loan itself and the issues that arose during our consideration of this matter. I understand that my colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory will address issues relating to parliamentary scrutiny of loans by the government. This loan of $A133.2 million was granted to PNG under the provisions of the International Monetary Agreement Act 1947, as amended in 1998. This enables the government to lend money to other countries, provided at least one government or organisation intends to provide, or has provided, money to the proposed recipient. Further, when loans are made under this act, it prescribes that a national interest statement setting out the nature and terms of the loan is to be tabled in the parliament. The national interest statement is also to set out the reasons why the loan is in Australia's national interest, having regard in particular to foreign policy, trade and economic interests. In this case, both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are working with PNG and lending it money to assist its reform agenda.There can be no doubt that making this loan to PNG is in Australia's national interest, and it is supported by the committee. The historical and geographic ties between the two nations are such that it would be unthinkable not to assist the government of Sir Mekere Morauta to continue its reform work. The terms of this loan are strictly commercial. PNG's record of repaying other loans is such that the committee is confident this loan will be repaid in full and on time. The NIS also refers to an additional $30 million that will be loaned to PNG. The committee understands that negotiations for this loan are under way at present. It is likely that the three payments making up this additional loan will be dealt with in the same way as the larger loan that is the subject of this report.Although the time to consider this matter was short, the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the joint committee carried out a standard inquiry process. A total of seven submissions were received from five organisations and individuals. A short public hearing was held on 12 September, at which very useful evidence was taken from a range of witnesses, notably from the Treasury, the DFAT portfolio and a panel from the ANU. These witnesses all supported the loan and the efforts of the Morauta government to implement a program of reform in PNG. I believe that my colleagues would agree that the witnesses from the ANU were surprisingly optimistic about PNG's prospects under the Morauta government. I am sure that all those with an interest in our closest northern neighbour hope that recent events in PNG will not lead to a weakening of its government's resolve to continue its reform program.In supporting this loan, the committee has also recommended that the legislation be amended to ensure that parliamentary consideration of any future loans is included earlier in the approval process. There is little purpose in the committee scrutinising a loan that has already been granted. Unfortunately, this situation is likely to recur when the additional loan of $30 million to PNG is referred to us. I commend the report to the House. 12:50:0021565Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—It gives me great pleasure to support my colleague the honourable member for Fadden in connection with the report entitled Australian government loan to Papua New Guinea of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade he has just tabled. I would like to talk about two issues that were of concern to the committee, and which he alluded to. At the outset, I should stress that no-one on the committee had any difficulty about the granting of the loan to the PNG government. The first point with which I will deal is in relation to the timing of the referral of a loan such as this to the joint committee for inquiry and report. Loans made under the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947, as amended, stand automatically referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, for inquiry and report within two months. Such a time frame does not encourage a long or detailed inquiry. Further, the legislation does not specify when in the approval process loans should be referred to the committee. Thus, the national interest statement was tabled some time after the loan was approved—that is, while the loan was granted on 21 June 2000, the NIS was not tabled in the parliament until 28 August 2000.Committee members had some difficulty in understanding why the joint committee was included in the process at all. Parliamentary scrutiny is a good and desirable thing but, to be effective in the consideration of loans such as this, it must occur earlier in the approval process than it does under this legislation. It is possible to include such scrutiny and approval processes without causing delays. For example, the approvals of government projects over a specified cost have to include time for consideration by the Public Works Committee. This has been so since the early years of the Federation. Since 1996, all treaties proposed for ratification must be examined by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Only 15 sitting days are allowed for its processes. This period is often as short as five or six weeks—rather shorter than the two months specified in the legislation for these loans.As the report states, what we see in this case is a concession of parliamentary scrutiny in theory but a denial of it in practice. We have recommended that the legislation be further amended to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny occurs before loans are executed under its provisions. We believe time can and should be made for scrutiny of these loans. Surely it is a waste of effort on all sides if there is no opportunity to make this scrutiny both timely and effective. The NIS states that an additional loan of $A30 million will be made to PNG shortly. It is unlikely that, if our recommendation is accepted, the legislation will have been amended to avoid a repetition of the situation set out in this report.The second point relates to some of the material given to us by departments involved in this process. The act is quite specific about the matters to be covered in the national interest statement: the terms and conditions of the loan and, broadly, Australia's national interest. The section in the national interest statement on the terms and conditions of the loan was not very helpful. It simply stated that the loan agreement `contains standard commercial terms and conditions, including an indemnity clause designed to protect the Commonwealth's interests.' Australia's national interest was not given much more consideration than the loan itself in the national interest statement. It was brief and, as far as it went, satisfactory. Unfortunately, neither the statement nor the evidence at the public hearing gave any indication of how Australia's national interest is defined or what factors are taken into account during that process. DFAT's additional material provided little additional light on either issue, repeating, with slight variations, what had already been put forward. I would hope, and I know that the committee shares this view, that the quality of the information provided by these organisations could improve if further loans are made under the provisions of this legislation. I commend the report to the House.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Fadden wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated at a later date?21566Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.215662156612:54:0021566Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled An extradition agreement with Latvia and an agreement with the United States of America on space vehicle tracking and communication, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—The report I have just presented contains the results of a review by the committee of two proposed treaty actions that were tabled in parliament on 15 August this year: a proposed agreement with Latvia on extradition; and proposed amendments to the agreement with the USA concerning space vehicle tracking and communication facilities.In this report, we have expressed our support for binding treaty action in the case of both agreements. The extradition treaty with Latvia, however, was a particularly difficult review for us. It is now common knowledge that the main impetus for the development of this treaty is an interest on the part of Latvia to facilitate the extradition of Konrad Kalejs, an alleged Nazi war criminal who is resident in Australia. While we understand that there is considerable public interest in this matter—and it has attracted a lot of media attention—we were concerned to ensure that any new extradition arrangements negotiated with Latvia that would replace an existing agreement between Latvia and Britain—which was signed in 1924 and to which Australia succeeded—should reflect the needs and interests of the whole Australian community, not just the imperatives of a particular situation.The fundamental dilemma in extradition is the need to strike a fair and reasonable balance between two competing interests: the need to ensure that Australia does not become a haven for fugitives to evade justice for crimes committed outside Australia; and the need to protect Australian citizens from unfair extradition in cases where they may have been falsely accused of committing a crime in a foreign country.Australia's current extradition law and practice, as described in the Extradition Act, is to allow extradition on a no-evidence basis. That is a departure from the former practice that required a requesting state to provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that the offence has been committed. That is still the requirement between Australia and Commonwealth countries. Although this parliament has in the past supported two no-evidence extradition arrangements, on this occasion we became aware of a number of aspects of this arrangement that have given us reason for concern. For example, we are concerned that, under the no-evidence regime, a person can be extradited to another country without the other country being required to provide any evidence at all that an offence has been committed. The other country simply has to allege that an offence has occurred. We are concerned that Australian governments provide less protection for their own citizens than is routinely provided by other governments around the world. It is commonplace for many countries to refuse to extradite their citizens. Instead, they seek to prosecute them at home for any offence they may have committed abroad. We are concerned that decisions made about an extradition under this no-evidence regime are made in a political rather than a judicial, or legal, environment. It seems to us that there are reasons to accept the views expressed by Professor Ivan Shearer, an eminent Australian professor of law, who advised us that Australia has been `over-hasty and unwise' in moving to no-evidence extradition arrangements. These are issues that warrant careful and extended consideration and we propose to initiate a separate and full inquiry into Australia's extradition law, policy and practice. I expect we will be advertising our inquiry and calling for public submissions soon. Despite these misgivings and our proposed new inquiry, we do accept that the extradition agreement with Latvia is consistent with current law and practice, and we have concluded that it would be precipitous to overturn this particular arrangement in advance of our broader inquiry. Accordingly, we support the proposed agreement.12:59:0021567Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—I rise to support the tabling statement for report No. 36 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. In relation to the agreement with the United States concerning space vehicle tracking and communications facilities, obviously there are benefits to Australia in being involved in this endeavour. Firstly, the exchange of scientific and technical skills and the exchange of scientific data are very important. Secondly, Australian scientists have access to specialised equipment that would not otherwise be available. Importantly, NASA covers all costs associated with the facilities and has spent in excess of $A470 million on space-related activities since 1960. There are around 135 engineers, technicians, operators and support staff located, for example, at the Tidbinbilla facility. Australia's cooperation with the US on space tracking related activities began in 1957 with the establishment of facilities at Woomera in South Australia to radio track US satellites. This was broadened to include additional scientific facilities set up by NASA in 1960. Since then the space vehicle tracking and communications relationship between Australia and the US has been the subject of a succession of treaties between the two countries. This treaty action further amends and extends the latest agreement—the 1980 program agreement. Those people who have seen The Dish would realise how important Australia's involvement was in the moon landing and the relaying of the radio pictures back to earth. In terms of management issues, the amendment does not increase the scope or operation of the program agreement nor impose new obligations on Australia; rather, it updates and formalises the existing arrangements relevant to contemporary realities and future space development. Some of the issues covered by the updates include: accounting for changes to Australia's taxation system, particularly the introduction of the goods and services tax; removal of reference to Orroral Valley Tracking Station—particularly relevant given that it was closed in the early 1980s; establishing the CSIRO as the cooperating agency on behalf of the Australian government, replacing the department of science and the environment; and further financial arrangements. In this regard the committee received advice that a memorandum of understanding would be developed between the Commonwealth and the Australian Capital Territory governments to ensure that the ACT government would not be responsible for any restoration costs in the event of relocation or closure of facilities. In relation to our extradition agreement with Latvia, most of the issues have been covered in the chair's tabling statement, with perhaps a couple of exceptions. Firstly, the treaty action differs from the model extradition agreement in two respects relating to World War II crimes, as set out in paragraph 2.8 of the report. The committee's consideration of World War II war crimes resulted in the view that the agreement is consistent with several other treaties, including those with Germany and Italy, and it is also consistent with Australia's retrospective criminalisation of World War II war crimes in its domestic legislation. The committee discussion of the World War II war crimes issue is set out at paragraphs 2.38 to 2.43. Secondly, in relation to mandatory and discretionary exemptions, paragraph 2.20 provides a list of grounds for refusal of a request for extradition. The committee has recommended a review of treaties containing no-evidence provisions, and I welcome this review. I was disappointed, however, that the issue originally held up the ratification of the treaty. Notwithstanding this, I am pleased the treaty has now been ratified and that extradition procedures can now be undertaken. This obviously provides for the extradition of Konrad Kalejs to face charges of war crimes. I believe that is very important and I will be watching that trial with great interest when he finally is extradited. 13:03:0021568Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise to support the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the honourable member for Wentworth, on the proposed agreement with Latvia. As the chair has already observed, the extradition of Konrad Kalejs was being discussed at the time of the committee's review, and the committee tried very hard not to allow the particular to become the principle. The overriding concern of the committee was the concern of Australian citizens and nationals under requirements for extradition. It is important, of course, to strike a fair and reasonable balance between these competing interests: that of ensuring that Australia does not become a haven for fugitives from justice and, as I have said, that Australian citizens are protected from unfair extradition when they have been falsely accused.I think the comments of the Challis Professor of International Law at the University of Sydney, Professor Ivan Shearer, are relevant. Some years ago the prima facie case under which extradition was based was abandoned, and Professor Shearer had the following to say:In my view the abandonment of the prima facie case requirements in Australia's extradition treaty and legislative policy was hasty and unwise. It is unjust that a person (especially an Australian citizen) may be extradited to a foreign country on the mere demand (albeit subject to certain safeguards) of that country's authorities and without the opportunity for an Australian court to examine the evidence. The alleged fugitive is not even permitted to present evidence of an alibi.He went on to mention the safeguard of the Attorney-General having powers of discretion with regard to extraditions. He commented:The protection of a citizen's liberties should not, however, rest in the hands of an Attorney-General, however benevolent, but should be subject to transparent processes of law.The alleged facts approach, which is the modern approach that Australia has adopted to extradition treaties, has become outdated. With Australia moving into a new century and with, quite properly, the pride that we have had in the Olympic Games and with sovereignty coming to the fore and the realisation that Australian nationality and citizenship is a most precious right, I feel—as did other members of the committee—that these matters have in fact taken us beyond what is now an outdated view of the basis for extradition. This view is also shared by Professor Shearer. He said:What is required is a test of sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable cause to suspect the fugitive of having committed the offence.Hear, hear to that. So with that, of course, the committee will be looking at all of the treaties that have been signed. This reflects the unease felt by all members of the committee at the so-called modern or no-evidence approach to extradition. The committee, as our chair has said, will be holding a separate, full inquiry into Australia's extradition law, policy and practice. There will be a call for public submissions. We firmly believe that—and the committee looked at this exhaustively—rather more the principle be involved than the particular case to hand. I feel that, although there have been treaties signed with other countries regarding the no-evidence provision, Australia has moved on. In a new century there are expectations from citizens that Australian nationality is important and that that should be reflected particularly in our international treaties. I welcome the further inquiry by the treaties committee and support the chair fully in his actions and work on this particular treaty.13:08:0021568Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has attempted in this matter, as in other matters, to highlight the range of views and concerns that have been brought before the parliament in a way that had not been the case until this committee came into being in mid-1996. We have given a range of people an opportunity to comment on the matters contained in this report and have attempted to make a judgment on the validity or otherwise of the agreements before us. In relation to the agreement with the United States concerning space vehicle tracking and communication facilities, there is a continuation of a longstanding win-win arrangement. Australia's role and importance in the US space program should never be underestimated by Australian citizens. And while we have a movie on our big screens all around the country at the moment called The Dish, which highlights some of the amusement behind the Apollo mission to the moon in 1969, it is probably very timely that Australia should renew its commitment with the United States to continue to receive the benefits contained within the signing or re-signing of this agreement. The exchange of scientific and technical skills and scientific data and the fact that Australian scientists have access to specialist equipment and to others who themselves are very specialist would not normally have been available to Australians if we had simply taken an isolationist approach. The fact that the United States National Aeronautic and Space Administration covers all the costs associated with the facilities and has spent in excess of $470 million on space related activities in this country since 1960, employing 135 engineers, technicians, operators and support staff located at Tidbinbilla just near here in Canberra, is further part of the evidence of the win-win situation. Regarding the extradition treaty with Latvia, the committee worked very slowly and methodically, and deliberately so. This committee believes strongly that Australian principles should be applied to each of these agreements and that we should not just let international convention or reality or pressure prevail upon the things that we sign up to. One would suppose that, in relation to extradition treaties, any Australian citizen finding themselves in a position where another government sought to have them face a court would want to be very well satisfied that there was evidence of an activity that should be put before a court. This committee feels very strongly about the need for evidence to be produced and not simply allegations being the basis of extradition. The Konrad Kalejs matter is at the heart of the updating of this agreement with Latvia, but it is not a person specific agreement we are dealing with. The committee was very determined, despite the international pressures in relation to this alleged Nazi war criminal, that we must not leave the door open for a wrong principle to be applied and that all Australian citizens, either by birth or by choice, should be well satisfied that their government is acting in a consistent and principled way in regard to these matters and, indeed, each and every matter.The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties rightly agrees with the principle that alleged war criminals should be brought to trial. We understand that a lot of people around Australia expressed just that view. Let me again say that this committee was not going to allow the pressure or the additional burden associated with the inquiry brought about by that particular concern to override those important principles about a certain amount of evidence being put forward. In fact, the proposed agreement allows for a number of discretionary grounds for refusal of requests for extradition according to the following principles:. where the death penalty is applicable in the requesting country, unless there is an undertaking given by the Requesting State that the death penalty will not be carried out;. where the fugitive is a national of the Requested State. If extradition is refused in these circumstances, the Requesting State may require that the Requested State consider prosecuting the fugitive;. where the penalty for the alleged offence is cruel, inhuman or degrading; or. the circumstances of the extradition would be unjust, oppressive or incompatible with humanitarian considerations.In other words, extradition treaties we sign up to as a country apply our principles of penalty, our principles of process and our principles of law. It is important that those principles should never, ever be cashed in because of the pressures that may come from other countries. In that regard, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has done its job again.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allocated for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Wentworth wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? 13:13:0021570Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 102B the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Bills21570R116721570Bill presented by Mr Kelvin Thomson.13:14:0021570Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2000 is a bill for an act to amend the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992. The intent of this bill is to amend the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to require all employers to remit the superannuation guarantee payments on a quarterly, rather than yearly, basis. This is, of course, a minimum and employers that currently pay monthly shall be entitled to continue doing so. The bill also makes provision for employers to remit advice to the Australian Taxation Office on a quarterly basis if they have a shortfall in their superannuation guarantee liability. This is to ensure that not only are the moneys paid on a quarterly basis but also that the tax office keeps a quarterly, not yearly, watch on companies' superannuation guarantee liability.Quarterly superannuation guarantee is an idea whose time has come. Labor originally proposed quarterly superannuation payments in 1992 when we introduced the superannuation guarantee. We agreed to annual payments to give employers time to settle in. Most employers are now compliant and pay more frequently than annually. Many pay quarterly or even monthly. They should not be at a competitive disadvantage compared with the small number of employers who do not pay their workers' super so conscientiously. The government admits that the amount of outstanding superannuation guarantee payments is $76 million. The Australian Taxation Office received some 8,000 complaints regarding superannuation guarantee compliance last year and 800 employers last year paid no superannuation at all. So we do believe this is a significant problem.I now draw to the attention of the House some specific examples of that problem. First, let me pay tribute to the workers from QC Bricks who have driven all the way from Bundaberg over the weekend to be in the chamber today to highlight the issue of superannuation guarantee non-compliance and to support this bill. I also acknowledge the energy and enthusiasm of their AWU organiser, Damien Green, which has led to their visit. These workers are former employees of the Wide Bay Brickworks in Bundaberg. The Wide Bay Brickworks workers did not have their superannuation payments paid from 1997.The workers' union—the AWU—contacted the tax office in September 1997 about the insufficient superannuation contributions. This was a full two years before the brickworks went into receivership. The outstanding contributions total $415,000. That was those workers' retirement incomes. The tax office apparently did precious little over that two-year period to chase down that money for the workers. Whenever anyone asked what they had done, the tax office would tell them that secrecy provisions prevented them providing anything other than the most basic details. So when the company went into receivership, the workers lost over two years superannuation. They are scandalised that the former owners are still walking around Bundaberg, with no prosecution action taken, apparently getting off scot-free. What message does this send to employers generally?In my electorate of Wills the workers at the Coburg Dyeworks had a similar situation happen to them. The administrator sacked the 61 workers at the Coburg factory in March this year and the workers stood to lose over $650,000 in superannuation and other entitlements. The administrator then applied to the employee entitlements scheme for reimbursement of the workers' lost benefits. They found that one of the many constraints of this scheme is that it does not cover superannuation. So no matter how much money you have lost, the government's scheme for guaranteeing workers' entitlements does nothing to cover these entitlements. The only company where superannuation got paid after the company went bust was National Textiles, one of whose directors was the brother of the Prime Minister. So if you are the brother of John Howard or the son of Peter Reith you can get special help from this government in an emergency, but otherwise you are on your own. I now refer to the case of Ms Lara Sharp. Ms Sharp commenced work with Baywaves Family Haircare in September 1994 and soon realised that her employer was not paying her superannuation. She lodged the appropriate notification forms with the tax office. On 30 June this year, the day before the introduction of the new tax system, the business was evicted from its premises. Upon contacting the tax office, Ms Sharp was informed that there was nothing that could be done in relation to her superannuation for 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000. Lara Sharp is understandably angry about this situation. She had been in contact with the tax office since 1997 about non-payment of superannuation. She believes that ample warning was given to the tax office and that proper compliance work should have been undertaken.I turn to the case of Ms Jamie Brighton of Bells Beach, Victoria. She started her apprenticeship at Alfio's Bistro in Torquay and was there for two years. On her departure she asked Alfio, the owner, to give her details of her superannuation so that she could put it into the new fund at her new place of employment. Her parents also asked many times and they asked their accountant to follow it up. She then filled out a complaint form from the Australian Taxation Office in November. She asks:Is it the practice of the Australian Taxation Office to let people like this off scot-free and leave hard working junior people to suffer the consequences?She says:Alfio Pizzeria & Bistro is running in Torquay doing a lucrative business so there is no doubt that the owners can be located. I am a young hard working person who is extremely frustrated that I can get no answers; surely it is against the law and taxation offices responsibility to follow these things up.Indeed, surely it is. Ms Brighton also advised that she had written to her local representative, Mr Stewart McArthur MP. She said she had received unsatisfactory replies from all, including the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Rod Kemp. She then went to the Commonwealth Taxation Ombudsman. The reply in all correspondence was:The ATO is unable to disclose specific information about the progress of the actions taken due to the secrecy provision of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992.She says:It's all very well to have secrecy provisions but as far as I can see it's an excuse to do nothing and have something to hide behind. The reply from the Commonwealth Taxation Ombudsman was in fact that the Taxation Office had done absolutely nothing on this issue and they would follow it up and here we are in December and nothing has been done.The December referred to was a year later.I turn now to Chaucer's Reception Centre. Chaucer's Reception Centre in Melbourne, associated with J.B. & T.M. Catering, went into liquidation leaving superannuation guarantee entitlements unpaid. For example, Ms Mia Fenner-Bailey was owed over $2,500 in superannuation, representing 76 weeks of work. I am advised that J.B. & T.M. Catering have not paid superannuation guarantee since 1993 and that a number of their employees have contacted the tax office concerning this but the tax office has failed to recover any of their money. Ms Fenner-Bailey has told me that her pay cheques claimed that superannuation was being paid to National Mutual, which has since been taken over by AXA. AXA advises that it has no superannuation policy for Mia.I turn to Mr Paul Durrant. Mr Durrant, also in Melbourne, worked for Phantom Property Maintenance. He says that he was underpaid $4,450 in superannuation entitlements when Phantom Property Maintenance closed, only to see those associated with that company reopen as Borg Property Maintenance. Both Mr Durrant's attempts and my attempts to ascertain from the tax office what action it was taking to recover his superannuation money were met with the response that it was bound by secrecy provisions regarding the supply of information concerning the tax affairs of the company. Surely these provisions should not prevent someone who has a superannuation guarantee entitlement being able to ascertain what action the tax office is taking to enforce their entitlement. I turn to the case of Mr Michael, a resident of Bulleen, whose employer had not been paying his superannuation guarantee as required under the law. He contacted the Australian Taxation Office, seeking its assistance in getting his superannuation contributions. Instead of the rather more efficient service that you receive from the tax office when you owe it money, Mr Michael was told that he should contact the department of workplace relations because the tax office only collects figures on noncompliance for statistical purposes. The same thing happened to Rebecca Pattison, of Boronia Heights, who made a complaint in 1998. She received a letter from the tax office in September 1998, thanking her for providing all the necessary information. A year later, she said in a letter to her local member:I then contacted the ATO, for them to look into it. It has now been a year, and I still haven't heard anything about it. The reason that Ms Pattison had not heard anything was that the ATO simply entered her information onto a database. Ms Pattison found out herself, with one phone call, that her superannuation was not being paid, whereas the tax office had not done anything in the course of 12 months.In addition to addressing those sorts of problems, quarterly superannuation is an idea whose time has come due to the introduction of pay-as-you-go taxation. The introduction of the pay-as-you-go, or PAYG, tax collection system will mean that employers will remit GST and other taxes every quarter. They already have to calculate SG liabilities every quarter, so it is entirely reasonable that at the same time you take care of your tax obligations you take care of your superannuation obligations. I have been consulting widely concerning this bill and I am delighted to have received an overwhelmingly positive response. The Queensland Treasurer, David Hamill, said: ... the Queensland Government supports the general principle contained within your Private Member's bill. Similarly, the Victorian Treasurer, John Brumby, said:... the Victorian Government is supportive of the general thrust of the proposed bill and we see no unintended consequences arising from its passage.Helen Martin, Vice President of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia, said:The IAA supports the policy intent of the proposed Bill to require payment of SG contributions at least quarterly.Philippa Smith, the Chief Executive Officer of ASFA, the largest superannuation body, said:As you are aware, this has been an issue of great concern to ASFA for a considerable period of time. Similarly, the Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia said:The proposal to require employers to remit Superannuation contributions quarterly is consistent with the previous ICAA submission to Parliament and therefore supported by the ICAA. The editor of the Bundaberg News Mail, wrote:Moving to quarterly payments, quickly letting workers know of any shortfall and immediately following up with the employer would offer great protection.Sandy Grant, the Managing Director of Industry Fund Services, said:We fully support your proposed bill - it is long overdue.The General Secretary of the National Union of Workers, Greg Sword, said:Our view is that the proposed amendment would be welcome ... our view is that those employers who may be affected by the amendment are those who should be affected. That is absolutely right. It is also worth noting that Deputy Commissioner of Taxation Mr Leo Bator told the Senate as recently as 17 October:... if you are dealing with an annual amount that has not been paid, in the cases where that is large it is perhaps harder for the employers to come up with the money to pay it. Smaller debts paid more frequently are probably going to be beneficial to both employer and the employee. He also said:... in our view, legislation that crystallised a liability at an earlier time should enable the ATO to deal with shortfalls in a more timely manner. It is also noteworthy that three government senators supported quarterly superannuation contributions in a Senate committee report tabled in March 2000. Quarterly payment of superannuation is not a cure-all for the compliance problem; there are also issues to do with the secrecy provisions, the tax office's lack of resources and excessive focus on the GST, and the problems of workers not having legal standing to pursue their entitlements. But it is a significant and necessary step forward. Workers should not miss out on their earned superannuation entitlements. It is not fair to them, and it simply puts the onus of funding their retirement back onto taxpayers. I know these private members' bills normally do not go anywhere, but this one really should, and I urge the government to take the action to progress this bill through the parliament or, if they cannot bring themselves to do that, introduce their own bill for quarterly contributions in the certain knowledge that they have our unqualified support.Bill read a first time.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills21573R116921573Bill presented by Ms Kernot.13:30:0021573Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—I present the Job Network Monitoring Authority Bill 2000 and seek leave to present the explanatory memorandum to this bill. Leave granted.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—I am presenting today a new private member's bill which has as its aim the establishment of the Job Network Monitoring Authority. When the Job Network was created by this government in 1996, this was done outside of parliament, thereby bypassing parliamentary debate and opportunities for amendment—that is, the normal levels of scrutiny, accountability and transparency that large changes of this nature should and normally have. In Labor's view, the government's refusal to allow the parliament as distinct from its department to examine the Job Network and the radical $3 billion experiment that it represents needs to be remedied.The secretiveness that surrounded the Job Network's establishment has also continued in its operation. Using the same organisation that established the Job Network—that is, the department—to monitor its effectiveness is just not acceptable in an age of greater accountability of the executive and its actions. The problem of having the same organisation establish, monitor and create policy for, as well as let $3 billion contracts for, it is not a new one. In fact, economists have been studying `capture theory', as they call it, for some time. We have only to look at the public sector information technology outsourcing debacle, which has cost taxpayers millions of dollars, to see the government's failure to monitor its large outsourcing initiatives in any meaningful way. This government has let its ideology of `private is nearly always good and public is nearly always bad' cloud its responsibilities to ensure that when contracts are handed out en masse there is still a careful and ongoing independent analysis and monitoring of the process. Labor believes this is vital to secure for the taxpayer value for money and minimum quality standards. It is also vital to ensure the public has confidence that there is no cover-up. It should be noted that it took the Auditor-General to uncover the massive losses. Details of the loss of taxpayers' money of this magnitude should have been open to public scrutiny well before the Auditor-General's report. We also know, through feedback from job seekers and Job Network providers as well as analysis from labour market researchers, that there are structural flaws in the way that the system of contracts and associated payments is administered. These structural flaws are making it difficult for even the most community spirited Job Network providers, of which there are a large number, to do their job effectively. Let us not forget that this Job Network is a radical experiment on the unemployed of Australia—and an ideological one in making this experiment a purely market driven one. The Auditor-General has pointed out that this market is one that is artificial. It has been created from scratch, and the rules are created and enforced purely by the department, DEWRSB. In an artificial market like this one, you would least expect a blind obsession with doing everything on a purely tendered basis to work. This purely tendered basis is, however, the methodology that is currently applied to the Job Network. The current Minister for Employment Services admitted as much when he recently flagged the idea of not tendering the entirety of the Job Network in the next round. The structural flaws in the design also include the fact that every extra dollar that is kept as a profit by a provider means that one less dollar is spent on training the unemployed. These are flaws that can best be exposed through an independent monitoring authority as proposed in this bill.When Labor began case management of the long-term unemployed, it recognised that it was important for a separate body to monitor and evaluate the system to be established. To this end, the Employment Services Regulatory Authority was established. It was at arm's length from government and had wide-ranging powers to oversee the tendering out of the long-term unemployed to case managers. Whilst this legislation has some similarities to that which established ESRA, it is not the same—and it cannot be: all of the powers once held by ESRA have now been absorbed by DEWRSB. This bill does not seek to transfer them all back to the Job Network Monitoring Authority. Instead, it seeks effectively to monitor DEWRSB in its role as the administrator of $3 billion of Job Network contracts. The monitoring authority will have no direct role in the tender process.I would now like to take the House through some of the Job Network problems that we know about and how the proposed monitoring authority would be able to address these. The first one is the problem of `parking' or `creaming', as it is called. Wherever you have a system operating purely on a limited capacity in terms of the number of unemployed that you can have on your books for assistance at any one time, there is an incentive built into the system to deal with the easiest cases first. This can also lead to helping the easier cases at the expense of the harder cases. It is possible to help these easier cases first, so as to get a payment, and to leave the harder cases until later or in fact not help them at all. Providers can do this because they know that, because they are not allocated money to assist every single unemployed job seeker, they can pick and choose who they help. They know that another job seeker will be walking through their door pretty well straight away and that this person may be much easier to help than some of their existing clients. I hear time and time again that, especially if you are a mature age job seeker and if you are someone who requires a little bit of money to be spent on you in training or retraining, there is a very significant chance that you will be `parked'. In other words, your details will be accepted and filed, and your resume will be shredded after three months; no follow-up phone call, no provision of training—nothing. Labor would argue that the design of the system encourages this to the detriment of many other genuine but harder to help job seekers. One of the first tasks of the Job Network Monitoring Authority will be to conduct an urgent and independent review of the payment system.Perhaps the most important flaw in the current structure is the lack of guaranteed training. It is true that Job Network providers are allocated a portion of their money under their contracts for training purposes. Allocating this money, however, is absolutely no guarantee that any of it will actually be spent on training the unemployed. Given the large feedback that I receive from unemployed people about the lack of training that many of them receive and from concerned staff working for the Job Network providers, it is really clear that this aspect of the process is not being monitored at all. In fact, this was confirmed by answers from the Minister for Employment Services to questions on notice put by me that state, in response to a query about the amount of training time: Job Network members are not required to account for expenditure on various forms of assistance to clients. The department cannot, therefore, report on expenditure on accredited training within Job Network.Perhaps they should be. How else will it be known whether Job Network providers are in fact providing the training that they are paid to undertake? Why shouldn't they be required to demonstrate this, as they are taking $3 billion worth of taxpayers' money?As can be imagined, my office has a lot of contact from people who are dissatisfied with their treatment under the Job Network. This is not to say that some people are not perfectly satisfied, and I have acknowledged on previous occasions some of the strengths of this new system. But that does not mean that we should simply ignore areas where improvement can be made. A lot of people have recently told me that they are extremely dissatisfied because they have been unfairly breached while registered with Job Network members. What appears to be happening is that unemployed people are being breached for very minor misdemeanours—unable to turn up for an interview, for example—with no checking to ensure that there is not a legitimate excuse. The misdemeanour is passed on to Centrelink, who implement the breach, again without a checking process, and the first thing the individual knows is that their payment does not arrive. What is just as bad is that, when the unemployed individual goes to appeal against their breach and offers a legitimate excuse, they are confronted with the fact that DEWRSB, the department that monitors the Job Network, asks, as a part of their business agreement with Centrelink, that `at least 60 per cent of all possible breach notifications actioned are applied and at least 75 per cent of these are maintained'. In other words, there is a quota of breaches to be filled.We have a right to know more about the incidence of breaching by providers. Mission Australia claimed last week that these breaches and the increase of breaches are contributing to the upturn in homelessness and pleas for assistance from many disadvantaged Australians. So the role here of the Job Network Monitoring Authority will be to investigate Job Network providers who are applying high levels of breaches and to take action to ensure that the particular Job Network provider is only making breach recommendations when there is no reasonable explanation.Another important role of the Job Network Monitoring Authority will be its ability to provide some measure of how well the Job Network is performing. To date all we have had are what can only be described as—and I still describe them as this—dodgy assertions by the Minister for Employment Services, because he seems to be desperate to prove that his system is better than any other previous system. It is different and it deserves to be scrutinised. It is not all bad but nevertheless he should be required to give us the proof of how his system is operating. I note that there has not yet been published a net impact analysis of the Job Network programs. This is the best way to analyse their level of effectiveness. I call upon the minister to undertake and publish these studies immediately.I would also like to note that the first independent and thorough analysis of the Job Network will come not from the government and not from the department but from the OECD, one of those international bodies that Mr Howard is always quite suspicious of. While I am sure that the OECD will come up with some interesting findings, it is in fact a once-off occurrence and what is needed is ongoing monitoring of the department's administration of the Job Network. Problems need to be identified, publicly discussed and solutions worked out not just once by an international organisation which only has access to what the department shows it but by a more formal domestic authority that has access to its own store of knowledge and expertise concerning the Job Network. This monitoring authority will provide job seekers, Job Network providers and the general public with an objective analysis of how things are really faring. It will also provide the basis for constructive reform. I call upon the government to pass this bill to establish the Job Network Monitoring Authority. If the Job Network is running as smoothly, as fairly and as transparently as the government claims it is, then I am sure the Minister for Employment Services will have no hesitation in offering his support for this bill. This authority should have been set up at the same time as the Job Network, back in 1996. We are entitled through parliament to have accurate and independent information and analysis of how the Job Network is achieving its goals. They are very important goals. They are about the dignity of work for all Australians. Four years later, it is time to remedy that deficiency.Bill read a first time.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Statements by Members215762157613:44:0021576O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—Like most members in regional seats, I am most concerned at the decision of the ABC board to reduce the budget for news and current affairs by $3.7 million. When cuts are made to any organisation, those cuts inevitably occur at the edges. In the case of ABC news and current affairs, the edges are in rural and regional Australia. Regional people have a right to expect locally produced and locally focused news, not news from Sydney or Melbourne. Any reduction in the quality or scope of locally produced programming would increase the information gap between those in large capital cities and those in regional areas.This concern is also clearly shared by the more than 60 Tasmanian ABC staff who attended a stop-work meeting last Friday. That these dedicated staff are concerned enough to take industrial action should ring very loud alarm bells for all members. Their future and the future of regional programming are at risk. The ABC, and particularly ABC news and current affairs, needs support to overcome the impact of the government's cuts to the budget, cuts which were the genesis of the current difficulties. It is essential that the ABC strive for continued improvement, but this cannot happen when local services are under threat. It is essential that the ABC's local and rural and regional news and current affairs programming is not only preserved but strengthened for the benefit of rural and regional listeners. The only way this can occur is through a commitment by the government to properly resource quality public broadcasting. This has been an issue that the National Party members have taken up over the last week or so. I am pleased to see that they have seen the error of their ways in previously supporting the reduction in the ABC's budget, and I can only hope that the Prime Minister pays more attention to them now than he has in the past.2157613:45:0021576Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—We had an interesting development in South Australia last week. Bill Hender, a member of the Labor Party for 20 years and President of South Australian Country Labor—which is just another name for the country members of the Labor Party—resigned from that position, as did the secretary. In doing so, he said that the Labor opposition, led by the Hon. Mike Rann, were unfit for government, and he told us what we have all known on this side of the House: that the Labor Party give only lip-service to country people. This was very interesting because when he was appointed to that position some five years ago he said that the coalition gave only lip-service to country people. But here we have a member of 20 years standing of the Labor Party, a member who was held very highly by them—in fact, he was No. 3 on their Senate ticket at the last federal election—who has resigned because he thinks the Labor Party do not do a thing for country people, that they give only lip-service to country people and, frankly, because they have a useless mob of politicians in South Australia. 2157713:46:0021577Byrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE008K0HoltALP00—I rise to speak of Murray MacGregor, a 72-year-old resident of Doveton. Murray has been a pillar of the community in Dandenong for over 50 years and is an unrecognised hero of our community. He is not on our TV screens or in our newspapers, and he is not a famous sportsperson; he is a person who is a vital part of any functioning community. Yet this pillar of the community has been rejected for an award by the Order of Australia Council on two occasions. I find this amazing given his level of service to the community, which I will detail. It includes the following: over 53 years of voluntary service; 16 years voluntary service in St John Ambulance Brigade; In-air Training Corps, Bairnsdale Squadron, 1945; justice of the peace currently; and bail justice between 1989 and 1999. He was a recipient of the Commonwealth Recognition Award from the City of Casey as one of four senior Australians recognised for their contribution to the community. He also received a 31-year community service award from Telecom, and he was Casey Citizen of the Year in 1998. He gave seven years of service to the Country Fire Brigade, and he was an adjudicate for the Department of Human Services in child protection cases. Mr Murray was an independent third-person witness in police interviews for the Public Advocate's Office, and he assisted police on some 3,500 occasions. He is a community visitor of the Department of Human Services to intellectually handicapped people, and he is a current member of the City of Casey friendly visiting scheme. As well as being a member of the Aboriginal Justice Panel in Dandenong for two years, he was a member of the task force that cleaned up after the Ash Wednesday fires. For 53 years Murray has performed actions above and beyond the normal call of duty or what could be reasonably expected from someone in a similar position. He is rightly entitled to this award. It is a gross injustice that this has not occurred. 2157713:48:0021577St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I rise today to congratulate the 12th/16th Hunter Lancers, which are headquartered in the city of Tamworth, in my electorate. On Saturday night the Beersheba annual dinner was held in Tamworth, with over 200 guests in attendance. At the dinner, we were pleased and honoured to have the Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Peter Cosgrove AC, MC as our guest speaker for the night. He was joined by Major General Hoeben AM, RFD, the Commander of the 2nd Division, and Brigadier R. P. Irving RFD, Commander of the 8th Brigade. The dinner was hosted by the honorary Colonel Rod Davis OAM, RFD and our commanding officer up there, Lieutenant Colonel Phil Harris. It was a very encouraging and enlightening night, during which General Cosgrove reiterated his thoughts on the charge of Beersheba back on 31 October 1917, when the 12th Lighthorse attacked the town of Beersheba, endeavouring to secure back the water wells. Many in this House would remember the anecdotes, the history, the story of the Beersheba charge and the magnificence of the 12th Hunter Lancers. Thirty-six Australians were killed on that particular charge, along with 70 of their most wonderful Waler horses, which were also part of it. (Time expired)2157713:49:0021577Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—The issue of the largely unaccountable nature of MPs' entitlements is causing deep concern in the electorate. I give notice of my intention to move a motion seeking that full details of members' entitlements and allowances, including staff entitlements, be tabled in this place every six months and that the Auditor-General and his office—not another independent body—be responsible for auditing them and be given the resources to do so. The motion acknowledges that the vast majority of MPs are hardworking and honest but that it is in the best interests of all to put in place a fully transparent system. As well, it instructs the House's Standing Committee on Privileges to inquire and report on a code of conduct for parliamentarians.I note also that the very worthy Charter of Political Honesty Bill 2000 from Senator Andrew Murray, introduced to the Senate on 10 October, provides for a commissioner of parliamentary and ministerial ethics. I have written to the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition seeking support for my motion, and obviously I would support one moved in similar terms by the government. I sought advice both within and outside parliament before framing the motion and have amended the draft to include a request that a cap be placed on all allowances and that they be managed directly by individual members. Unless we move decisively on this matter—and, indeed, on long--needed reforms to the parliamentary superannuation scheme—the credibility gap between parliament and the electorate will only widen. 2157813:51:0021578Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—A resident of Bradfield, Mr Mark Norville, wrote the following letter to the Premier of New South Wales on 16 August 2000:Dear PremierI am writing to request your views on the state of democracy in New South Wales. When I went to school, I was taught that our government, federal or state, was there to represent the entire community. Since then, we have been well represented with successive governments' attempts to eliminate discrimination from our society, and that no matter what your race, colour, creed, gender, age, sexual preference or various other criteria, we are all entitled to equal treatment and representation.Unfortunately, I now find myself having to explain to my three daughters at Roseville College that their government is discriminating against them and all the children in schools like theirs in New South Wales. Should the cuts to government funding of independent schools not be reversed, we shall have to give serious consideration to returning them to our local public schools. I am sure you will appreciate that my daughters will find your course of action difficult to understand. Suffice to say that it represents a very poor example when we are trying to teach our children to be tolerant in a way that we of our era were wont to do. After all the good efforts of the last decade, your actions have the potential to be the single most divisive issue faced by the New South Wales community for many years. I am also sure that if all the parents of all the children of independent schools were to arrive on the doorstep of their local public schools requesting places for their children those schools would be unable to cope.Finally, I suggest to Mr Aquilina, the New South Wales Minister for Education and Training, that if he wants to run an inquiry into education in New South Wales he ought to be looking at public schools and why parents are leaving them. (Time expired)2157813:53:0021578McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—I rise to recognise the achievement and honour the life of Dr Kumantjayi Perkins. I was privileged to attend the state funeral for him in Sydney on Wednesday and proud my leader chose to go, and disappointed the Prime Minister did not. I was honoured to have been allowed to attend the further function in Alice Springs on Saturday. It is my view that the government should have moved a motion of condolence in this place but, as they have not, I wish to recognise the contribution of Dr Perkins and to honour his life. He was a controversial man. I, along with many others, disagreed with him from time to time. But it is beyond question that Australia is a better place for his great contribution over the 35 years since he led the freedom rides of 1965. I wish to put that on record and extend my condolences to his wife Elaine, to his daughters, Hetty and Rachel, his son Adam and his grandchildren. Australia is a place much enhanced in its recognition of the rights of indigenous Australians as a result of the works of this man. It is a great pity we do not have a better opportunity here in the House formally to recognise it. I am pleased there was a state funeral. I am pleased that he had the recognition of the march through Sydney on Wednesday—what was called his last great demonstration—and I was delighted to have the opportunity to join with so many Australians in honouring his contribution.2157813:54:0021578Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—The sporting bonanza of the Paralympics over the past 11 days continued the outstanding success of the Olympic Games. The magnificent achievements of the elite sportsmen and sportswomen were truly inspiring. It was tremendous to see the enormous community support of particularly the large number of schoolchildren who cheered themselves hoarse at so many events. In congratulating the 390-strong Australian Paralympic team, I particularly want to make mention of the five from my electorate. These were Tim Devine from Wentworth Falls, who competed in the basketball, Julie Higgins from Wilberforce in the equestrian, Glenn Pyne from Windsor in the sitting volleyball, and Chris Pyne from Faulconbridge and Jason Rand from Richmond in the soccer. Congratulations to these five local heroes on being chosen to represent Australia at such an elite level of sporting competition. To Julie Higgins particularly, who won two gold medals in the equestrian in dressage on a horse she had never ridden before, what an outstanding achievement. I noticed also that in their final soccer game, in which Australia defeated the Netherlands 2-1, it was our two locals who each scored one of the two goals. This is a fantastic outcome and a great win. To the whole Australian Paralympic team, thank you for 11 days of magnificent sport and for giving Australia so much to be proud of. Congratulations to you all. 2157913:56:0021579Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I would also like to extend my condolences to the family of Dr Kumantjayi Perkins on the death of their husband, father and grandfather. In particular I extend those condolences to his wife Elaine, his three children, Hetty, Adam and Rachel, and his four grandchildren. I thank them also for permitting me and many thousands of others to share their sorrow and to listen to their marvellous, dignified remarks about the life of their husband and father. There is no doubt at all that Dr Kumantjayi Perkins stands head and shoulders above all in the issues of indigenous affairs. He was the first Aboriginal graduate. He was first to lead a movement of the Aboriginal people that included Europeans as well. He was an outstanding Aboriginal statesman and took that position through to achieving the highest level of office an Aboriginal has at the Commonwealth level as head of a Commonwealth department. On the way through he chaired and was involved with a plethora of formal government based and private based Aboriginal organisations, and his service in all those capacities was outstanding. He was also a great sportsman. Above all, of course, he will be remembered as a great spokesman for his people. He was without question the man who changed the articulation of Aboriginal affairs from essentially an articulation by people outside the Aboriginal community, be they missionaries, anthropologists, politicians or whatever, to the Aboriginal community speaking for themselves. He had great dignity and great intelligence, and that enabled him to do that so effectively.2157913:57:0021579Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I would like to raise some matters which relate to the unfortunate Senator Crossin. She seems to be confused about almost every detail of her son's girlfriend's involvement in a fatal accident while driving her Commonwealth car. First, the issue of Narcan. The indications for Narcan are as a diagnostic aid in suspected overdose of opiates: heroin, morphine and so on. If a patient has poor breathing or no breathing, it can be given just in case opiates are a factor. The question I have is: what on earth was someone with a blood alcohol level of .054 and in such a state that opiates were suspected doing behind the wheel? The second question relates to the authorisation. Back in March 2000 the Northern Territory News actually flagged that the police were unclear as to whether the woman driving the car was authorised to do so. On Tuesday last week a spokesman would not confirm if a written nomination had been lodged with MAPS. On Thursday last week Senator Crossin said, `The driver of my vehicle was a person authorised by me. I have since confirmed this authorisation in writing to DOFA.' On Friday last week she actually said neither her office nor DOFA was able to find a document detailing written authorisation which was sent off several weeks after the accident. She sent off a faxed authorisation for Ms Byrne and other family and staff members to DOFA last Wednesday. Senator Crossin today has accused the media of twisting the truth and distorting the facts. The Labor Party should apply the same standards—(Time expired)2158013:59:0021580Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—On Tuesday, 31 October Balmoral State High School in Brisbane will be having its annual speech night awards. Because of parliamentary commitments, I will be unable to attend those awards. I would like, however, to use this opportunity to acknowledge the particular achievements of senior dux, Poonam Pratap; the Caltex best all-rounder award to Kasey Bruekers; the Don Cameron Cup for contribution to the betterment of the school to Shelley Nolan; the John Campbell citizenship award to Rene Tongia-Mann; the languages award to Earl Tan; the overall best sportsman to William Hetheringham; and the junior dux, Johann Tan. Apart from that, Balmoral High School has in the last 12 months registered extraordinary achievements in a number of state-wide competitions: the New South Wales maths and science competitions and the Queensland English competition, just to name a few.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the time for members' statements has concluded.Miscellaneous2158014:00:0021580Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPActing Prime Minister10by leave—I move:That this House:(1) recognises the huge success of the Sydney 2000 Paralympics Games and that the games demonstrated the great capacity and generosity of spirit of the Australian people;(2) conveys on behalf of all Australians the nation's pride and congratulations for the performances of all the athletes who represented Australia at these games;(3) congratulates the Sydney Paralympics Organising Committee and others responsible for staging such an outstandingly successful games;(4) expresses our thanks and gratitude to the more than 15,000 volunteers whose cheerful enthusiasm and commitment ensured that the Paralympics were an enjoyable and friendly experience for everyone who attended;(5) expresses our thanks to all officials from Commonwealth departments and agencies who worked to prepare and support the running of the games, including the men and women of the Australian Defence Force; and(6) extends our best wishes to the government and the people of Greece for their preparations and staging of the 2004 Olympic and Paralympic Games.The entire nation can take great pride in the undoubted success at the Paralympics Games. Just like the Olympics, these games have brought enormous credit to the nation. The people who, above all, have made the games a great success are the people who have been mentioned in this motion. But, above and beyond that, it would be remiss of us not to acknowledge, as the elected representatives of the Australian people, the enormous contribution made to the success of the games by the attitude and generosity of spirit of Australians which pervaded the entire Paralympics. Australians embraced the games and the athletes in a way which exceeded everyone's expectations. Throughout the entirety of the Paralympic Games, the spectators and the athletes alike displayed great sportsmanship and spirit. The crowds cheered for competitors from all nations. The Australian teams displayed true sportsmanship in relation to victories by athletes from other countries. I think it reflects greatly on the credit of all the people of Australia that there should have been such a sportsmanlike approach. I would particularly like to record the respect and admiration I have, and I know that all Australians have, for the members of the Australian Paralympic team as elite sports men and women. It was without doubt the most successful team ever across a range of sports of all the teams that Australia has sent to the Paralympics. Australia has had an exceptionally strong representation in these games and a very wide range of success in individual sports and ultimate overall success in heading the medal table.I would like to congratulate all of those associated with the organisation of the games, especially the members of the Sydney Paralympics Organising Committee. I record in that context my congratulations to the chairman of that committee, Dr John Grant. I record my appreciation to all parliamentarians for their active support of the Paralympics. I congratulate the member for Lindsay, the Minister for Sport and Tourism, and the minister who so ably assisted the Prime Minister in the build-up to the Paralympics Games. Most importantly of all, I congratulate the people who were involved in the games: the athletes, the organisers, the volunteers, all those responsible for the preparation and reconstruction of the facilities in the short period between the Olympics and the Paralympics and all the staff at Sydney airport for another great performance. I know, too, that the House would join me in acknowledging the great effectiveness and exuberance of the member for Farrer, Tim Fischer, as the mayor of the village, and the hard work and empathetic support of the member for Cowan in that regard. Some 5,000 reservists and regular members of the ADF had also worked for months as part of Operation Gold in the build-up to and through the performance of both the Olympics and the Paralympics. I think we would all agree that the Paralympics were a fantastic event. They reinforced to the world much that is great about Australia: our openness, our friendliness, our sense of enjoyment in sport and relaxation, and our capacity to compete very strongly. These Paralympics undoubtedly set a number of significant benchmarks. The very close and fruitful cooperation between the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and the SPOC meant that Australia and the world celebrated one 60-day event rather than two separate events. The Paralympics saw the highest number of ticket sales and attendances ever. Over 300,000 schoolchildren across Australia were able to witness at first-hand the incredible feats of the athletes. They added enormously to the excitement and the atmosphere of the games. Comprehensive television coverage extended to an estimated audience of one billion people and, for the first time, the Paralympics were broadcast live on the World Wide Web. So all of us, as Australians, can feel very proud of what has been done and of what has been achieved. I think we should in a very generous and bipartisan fashion convey through this motion our immense respect for those who made this possible, our gratitude to the athletes, our thanks to the volunteers and the remarkable job that they did—we were proud of each and every one of them—and a sense of well-deserved pride and satisfaction at what our nation has achieved and the credit we have won in the eyes of the world.Finally, we wish the government and the people of Greece all the best in their preparation for the 2004 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Athens. The return of the games to the birthplace of the Olympics will give the 2004 Games a special significance. We look forward to those games with great anticipation.14:06:0021581Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00My dear friends of Sydney and Australia, it is an honour and privilege to hereby announce to you and the world that the Paralympic Summer Games Sydney 2000 were indeed the best ever. You have completed a perfect festival of sport and friendship. What a way to start the 21st century and, make no mistake about it, Australians, it was accomplished by you.The Acting Prime Minister has already mentioned the crowds that attended. I must say that, for those like me and I think many members here who managed to get along to a few of the events on some of the days, that was the overwhelming impression that struck you so unexpectedly. To stand on Olympic Boulevard the weekend before last and watch thousands of people moving between venues, enjoying the atmosphere and lining up in their serried ranks for autographs of the athletes, you could not but be impressed by the fact that the people of Australia took these games enormously to heart. I do not make this by way of invidious comparison at all, but the other thing that struck me about the crowds was how much they were reflective of the average Australian in the areas where the games took place. As I attended the Olympics, I met many from the United States, many from across the water in New Zealand, many from the UK and many from Europe. As I stood on Olympic Boulevard during the Paralympics, I met Westies and I met people from Wollongong and people from Newcastle. It was a great parade of average Australia coming to pay homage to the competition and to enjoy the facilities—and enjoy it they did enormously. Right from the second day, as I watched at the basketball, the kids started to build up huge crowds. They did obtain record crowds for a whole variety of Olympic sports, including basketball. The passion of those children as they came in huge numbers to enjoy the spectacle and to enjoy the opportunity would have gladdened the heart of any Australian parent. The athletes were inspired. All of us who watched these folk perform contemplated the difficulties they have overcome in their lives to get themselves to the status of elite athletes. How did they do it? We find them awesome. We find their achievement awesome. But when you go into the village, as I know the village's able mayor did—of course he lived there—and meet the athletes, you do not find people conscious of awesome achievement. What you find are elite athletes with elite athletes' preoccupations. Have I been properly classified? Will I achieve my personal best? Will I medal? What is the status of the competition in which I am engaged? These are the sorts of things that apply to any athlete, and of course it reflects their longstanding struggle to achieve that status for themselves. Having achieved that status, they are no different from any other elite athlete in their preoccupations.The games have produced new heroes. I should obviously mention one or two of them. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but all of us must have been moved by Siobhan Paton and the fact that she achieved six gold medals and eight world records. Tim Sullivan from Victoria won five gold medals. Neil Fuller from South Australia won four. Lisa Llorens won three, Lisa McIntosh won three, and Heath Francis and Greg Smith won three gold medals. Louise Sauvage won two gold medals and gave a marvellously sportsmanlike performance in relation to the loss of a third gold and the achievement of a silver medal in the 800 metres. All of those heroes whom we have come to identify with Paralympic sports were there, and a whole lot of new ones in addition. They all achieved marvellously for themselves, for their sport and for an understanding of the possibilities that there are to lead great lives and to achieve that status for those who have had the most awesome impediments placed in front of them. We have been privileged to be their hosts and to be witness to this.I particularly appreciated the member for Cowan ensuring that I got taken around the village. He introduced me to a lot of athletes and put me in a position to be able to present some certificates. He was clearly very deeply engaged, as of course was the former Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, as mayor of the village. I congratulate again the City of Sydney. I congratulate again the New South Wales government, which had primary carriage of these events. I acknowledge too the role of the Commonwealth in all of this and the Commonwealth agencies which have assisted. But above all I congratulate the volunteers—15,000 of them—who supported these events. There were 15,000 volunteers all as cheerful to be servants of the Paralympics as they were to be servants of the Olympics. They were all absolutely determined that everybody who visited the site should have a great experience. We as a nation have had a treat for six weeks now. It has been an extraordinary interlude in our national affairs, during which we have been the focus of international attention and have come through very well. The people of Australia are the principal beneficiaries here. We have been inspired by what we have seen in two successive sets of games—inspired for different reasons. This is not a nation or a generation that will be the same again for this experience.Question resolved in the affirmative. Questions Without Notice215832158314:13:0021583Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Do you recall telling journalists at a news conference on 13 October that your $950 repayment would have become public because:... at some stage there is a process for that to be tabled in Parliament so ... the fact is it was always going to have a public exposure.Is it not true that there is no procedure under which this payment would have been tabled in the parliament? Is it not true that if the Canberra Times had not exposed it your telecard rort would never have seen the light of day? 21583Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—What I said then was what I understood to be the case. In terms of the handling of the matter, when it was first brought to my attention in August 1999 I asked that there be a full departmental investigation. When the results of that investigation were provided to me in April this year, my response was that the matter should be fully investigated by the police, given the nature of what had transpired. I believe that was the right thing to do. It is a fact—and I have said it before in the House—that I made a mistake back in 1994. I had not appreciated—and according to the Solicitor-General it would not be reasonable for someone to assume the later events—what had happened. But, as soon as I was aware of what had happened, I acted appropriately to ensure that the matter was appropriately dealt with.2158314:15:0021583Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I thank the Acting Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their kind comments in relation to the Paralympics. My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and relates to the just completed Pacific Islands Forum, attended by an Australian delegation led by the Prime Minister. Would the minister inform the House about the significance of the Biketawa Declaration adopted at the forum? What are the onward ramifications of the declaration?21583Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Farrer for his question. I think the House knows the interest he has in matters pertaining to the South Pacific. Honourable members will be aware that the Prime Minister was party yesterday to the Biketawa Declaration, which was agreed to by all of the forum leaders at their retreat at an island called Biketawa, in Kiribati, yesterday and Saturday. This is a major step by the South Pacific to protect democracy and good governance. This declaration originates from the first ever meeting of forum foreign ministers, which was held in Apia between 10 and 11 August. That meeting of foreign ministers was convened to discuss the Fijian and Solomon Islands crises and to explore whether the forum should take further action, or some action, should there be crises in the future. At that meeting, it was agreed to recommend to leaders a set of principles and actions that could form a regional response to crises.The Biketawa Declaration represents a milestone in forum relations by providing a mechanism through which it can call on members to uphold democratic principles and to take certain actions, including targeted measures, if a member state breaches those principles. Australia has taken a leading role in seeking a constructive international and regional response to recent challenges to regional stability. We worked hard through the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group in particular, and bilaterally to press for an early restoration of democracy in Fiji. We have assisted the parties in the Solomon Islands to reach a cease-fire and, subsequently, the peace agreement signed in Townsville on 15 October. We are now preparing for the deployment of an international peace monitoring team to support the Townsville peace agreement.I think the Biketawa Declaration, which Australia has worked hard with other countries to get agreed by the leaders, is a very important step forward for the Pacific nations. It is the first time they have ever agreed to cooperate in this way, and I congratulate the leaders, including of course our own Prime Minister, on the success of the forum leaders meeting. 2158414:18:0021584McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, I refer to this morning's revelation that the final amount you will pay for your telecard foolishness is $46,750. Does this amount represent repayment of all calls made on your telecard? If not, which calls are you not now repaying? Were any of these calls made by you after 1994?21584Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I had hand-delivered to the relevant minister's office this morning a personal cheque for $46,757. In addition to that, an earlier amount of $950 was paid, making a total of $47,707. I am told by the Department of Finance and Administration that that represents the amount paid by the taxpayer, the complete cost for all calls from 18 January. They asked me what was a reasonable date. We had a discussion as to the commencement date. There is no doubt that, as from 18 January, I have paid for every phone call made from that day through to 30 August 1999, when this matter was brought to my attention, including 23 phone calls that were made by two members of staff. In terms of the amount paid by the taxpayer, that is every last cent I have paid—noting, I might say, that I have no civil liability for that but that I have accepted the political responsibility for every last dollar paid by the taxpayer.2158414:20:0021584Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the results of the September quarter consumer price index, released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics last Wednesday?21584Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for La Trobe for his question. I can inform him that the September quarter consumer price index figures were released last Wednesday, showing that there was an increase in the CPI of 3.7 per cent, significantly less than the government forecast in the budget of 3¾ per cent. It appears that the one-off effect from the goods and services tax was somewhat less than three per cent, not the 3¾ per cent the government had forecast in the budget. Remember this: in forthcoming quarters, the one-off effect of the taxation change will actually be to reduce the consumer price index as savings from wholesale sales tax flow through, and, on 1 July next year, stamp duties on marketable securities and financial institutions duty will be abolished. After abstracting from those figures the effect of the new tax system, the CPI was about 3¼ per cent over the past year, of which about one per cent represents the effect of petrol, meaning that core, or underlying, inflation—core inflation is a measure which is used in other countries—was about 2¼ per cent. This is an extremely low figure; in fact it is down at the lower end of the government's target of two to three per cent. At this time of the cycle, that is a very good outcome indeed.The effect of the consumer price index was actually lower than forecast by the government. The government put in place, with income tax cuts and increases in family allowances, more than generous compensation for the expected price impact—and the price impact was less than forecast, meaning that families have actually got more generous compensation than even the government had been forecasting. This was of course disappointing to the ACTU and to its superannuated members in this House, who were expecting a higher figure and were gearing up for wage claims on the basis of it. No doubt there was some disappointment for the former ACTU presidents in this House.If the government was wrong about the one-off price impact, it was because it overstated the effect, not because it understated it. It demonstrated the complete falsity of the Labor Party campaign against tax reform. The Labor Party said persistently that the tax changes would increase all prices by 10 per cent. The effect—even before all of the tax cuts are taken into account—was in fact less than three per cent. That was the Labor Party's false campaign. We even had claims as late as 1 August 2000 from the Leader of the Opposition who stated, in Hobart, `People are now paying more for child care, more for education and more for health.' One of the findings of the ABS on the consumer price index was that the cost of child care fell 15 per cent under the new tax system. The ABS takes into account not just the fact that child care is GST free and people got back all of their input tax credits, but rebates were extended to more people at a higher value. So the cost of child care became cheaper under the new taxation system. This point was made in the Sun-Herald on the weekend, in an article headed `Child-care costs down 15 per cent'. It states, `Families with young children in child care have been the biggest winners from the lower than expected inflation over the past three months.' If the Labor Party had had their way, families would not have got the benefit of cheaper child care. The Labor Party opposed tax reform. They went around claiming that prices would go up 10 per cent, and they are disappointed when prices come down, when the CPI is going up by less than three per cent. We are back here again in this House, and we wait again for the R word to be used in this week of sitting. The R word has not been uttered by the Leader of the Opposition since 20 July. He was going to surf into office opposing the GST, and what is his policy now? His policy now is to keep it. He was going to roll it back, and yet he cannot even utter the word `roll-back'. He cannot tell us what he is going to roll it back on, he cannot tell us when, he cannot tell us how much it is going to cost, he cannot tell us how much it is going to affect the CPI, he cannot tell us how he is going to pay for it and he cannot tell us what the income tax rates are going to be. We have come across some weak oppositions in our time, but this opposition have been completely populist and dishonest. They have been caught, they have no policy, and the best thing they could do is to apologise to the Australian people for the falsity that they put out in the last election.2158514:27:0021585Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, and it refers to two Rs: Reith and rorts. Minister, do you recall a Herald Sun article of 12 October that revealed a May 1998 note on your Telstra telecard computer file that said, `Customer not happy. Wants to take matter to the TIO'—the ombudsman? Are you, your electorate office or your ministerial office the customer referred to?21585Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—Neither I nor my staff—electorate, ministerial or otherwise—had any knowledge of that report until we read it in the Herald Sun on the day that you refer to. No, I qualify that: the Herald Sun rang the night before to ask us, and our response was that we knew nothing of this matter until August 1999.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Were you the customer?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister is entitled to be heard in silence.84GWilkie, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Swan is warned.WI4Mr REITH—I do not mind responding to the interjection to make it absolutely clear and to fully answer the question. I have had no knowledge of that minute whatsoever, at any time—full stop.2158514:29:0021585Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—Mr Speaker—GK6Kelly, Jackie, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Sport and Tourism! The member for Dunkley has the call.1K6Mr BILLSON—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware of plans to re-regulate the Victorian workplace relations system—GK6Kelly, Jackie, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the Minister for Sport and Tourism! The member for Dunkley has the call and will recommence his question.1K6Mr BILLSON—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware of plans to re-regulate the Victorian workplace relations system? Would you inform the House of the impact this will have on the state's economy? Further, are you aware of any plans to re-regulate the federal workplace relations system? 21586Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The Victorian state government made some announcements last week about the establishment of a tribunal in Victoria in the area of workplace relations. This is an interesting move from a Labor government which in opposition supported the referral of workplace relations to the federal parliament. I presume they supported the referral back in 1996 because it made sense for a lot of Victorian businesses to reduce compliance costs, complexity and the like. The latest proposal from the Victorian government has been estimated by the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry to result in the loss of around 22,000 jobs. The Premier of Victoria disputes that figure, but he does not dispute the fact that there will be job losses as a result of the establishment of this new regulatory body in Victoria. In fact, the economic statement prepared for the Victorian government by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research reveals that 600 jobs will be lost in the short term and 1,900 jobs will be lost over a decade. Some might say, `Oh, these are a few jobs; nothing much to worry about.' I say that every job counts, and it seems to go against any commonsense for a state government to be introducing so-called reforms that are going to cost people jobs. We have had a lot of concerns expressed in the last few days about 500 jobs being lost with the Email manufacturing plant in Melbourne. Under this proposal from Mr Bracks four times as many jobs would be deliberately lost as a result of a government policy. The other interesting thing is that the person who prepared the impact statement for the Victorian government, which they released, not only said that there would be a loss of jobs but, furthermore, said:The legislation would lead to a shift to casual employment because the cost of permanent employment would increase while casual loading stayed the same.This is a pretty incredible outcome from a Labor Party policy. The Labor Party have been railing about the increase in casualisation and now we have a Labor government who, on the advice of their own expert, say that their policy will lead to an increase in casualisation. Under the previous federal administration, casualisation grew at the staggering rate of 7½ per cent between 1990 and 1996. Under the federal coalition's workplace relations reform, that growth has slowed significantly to 1.6 per cent. Last year the Leader of the Opposition said that he was going to have an inquiry into casualisation. You do not need an inquiry into casualisation. He ought to pick up the phone and say to Steve Bracks that introducing reforms of this sort, leading to further casualisation, is not in the best interests of the community. It is done only to serve a few union interests, and he ought to stand up to them for once.2158614:33:0021586Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, did you, your electorate office or your ministerial office have any contact with Telstra prior to August 1999 concerning the use of your telecard? Were issues raised with you or your office about high usage or about particular calls, including two calls as revealed by Senator Ellison in the Senate today?21586Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The short answer is no. Furthermore, let me restate to the House that the first time I knew of this irregular usage of my card was on 30 August 1999. That account had been paid for by the relevant department—the Department of Administrative Services and then the Department of Finance and Administration—over a period of approximately five years and there had been no reference to me. Furthermore, the reason that there was no reference to me was in fact—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—Or your office?WI4Mr REITH—Or to my office. You asked me about me or anybody associated with me in terms of electorate staff or ministerial staff. I have not had that matter at any time brought to my attention, and obviously I was surprised when I was asked about it on 30 August as a result of a request from the Department of Finance and Administration, to the effect: was the minister still using the Telecard? We now know, as the Leader of the Opposition said when it was put to him on 11 October, that `the way Labor structured the system back in 1991 did make it harder to pick up fraudulent use of taxpayers' money': Well, it is difficult to discern what that particular item would be in your account. Senator Conroy was asked by Sally Loane on 2BL on the same day:So you would know each month what your individual telecard is racking up?He replied:You don't know the individual telecard. You know what your electorate office phonecard is and that includes a component of your telecard.The fact is that I knew nothing of this until August 1999.2158714:36:0021587Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—My question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Acting Prime Minister advise what action the government is taking to ensure that remote communities and regional and rural communities, such as those in my electorate of Ballarat, have the ability to maximise their social and economic future?21587Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge his very real interest in creating opportunities for rural and regional Australia, much of which is experiencing what might be called the tough end of very real economic change.The Regional Solutions Program will provide $90 million over four years. It is a direct response, along with a range of other initiatives, to last year's Regional Australia Summit. It joins, for example, such initiatives as the $1.8 billion expenditure outlined in the areas of health, Agriculture—Advancing Australia and more equitable access to education, particularly in remote areas. Of course, since then there has been the salinity and water commitment of the government—a very full, detailed and comprehensive response to the needs that were outlined at that summit.The Regional Solutions Program recognises that one-size-fits-all programs coming out of Canberra—where Canberra pretends that it knows best—do not work. Regional communities want to share responsibility with government for their region's development. They want to be given the tools and the capacity to take forward their own drive and their own ideas and to develop their own futures. The program targets communities experiencing economic and social disadvantage, including particularly high levels of unemployment and inadequate services. It is designed to help such communities build capacity and to identify and implement development opportunities. It will complement other government programs such as the Rural Transaction Centres, Stronger Families and Communities, Networking the Nation, and of course the Regional Assistance Program. Communities can seek assistance in conjunction with these other programs if that best meets their needs.After careful analysis of a number of programs that have been put forward for other government initiatives that did not quite fit, we have announced five pilot programs, one of which is in fact in the electorate of the member who asked the question, the member for Ballarat, and that is $56,000 to the Creswick district newspaper to enlarge that community's newspaper's operations and distribution, including the establishment of Internet facilities. It is very important indeed that people in rural, regional and remote areas be given an opportunity to upskill their abilities in areas which are going to be critical to people accessing the new economy. I know that that has been very welcome. Other examples include $330,000 to the Border Highlands Rail to restore the nationally significant Wallangarra railway station as part of an attempt to build a tourism industry with much greater depth in that hard-pressed region.In the Atherton Tablelands, which has experienced enormous stress in recent years through the winding back, for example, of the tobacco industry and where farmers have been affected by that and a whole range of other problems, there is nearly $300,000 for that community to develop, through a community liaison officer, a whole new range of both domestic and export markets. There is $55,000 going to the Northern Territory Christian Schools Association to promote greater integration of education and community wellbeing at a remote community there, and there is $100,000 to conduct a Tweed Shire agricultural land viability study as people in that area cope with enormous change in land use management. There are a variety of programs from planning through to modest seed funding for capital infrastructure available under this very useful, flexible program which is designed to help communities meet their own needs and drive forward their own ideas and their own initiatives in partnership rather than being dictated to by Canberra. 2158814:40:0021588Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Do you recall your statement on 2BL on 12 October in which you said: I have had the benefit of some of the evidence that the police have obtained as to how this whole thing happened.And your statement at a doorstop on 23 October that:DOFA gave me an analysis of the 11,000 phone calls and I have discussed that matter with them in great detail and similarly with the police. We have gone over the details of the telephone numbers called and whom they may have been from and to and the like.Do you recall your statement on 3AW on 18 October that:I have not been privy to the police investigations or what has been given to the independent Solicitor-General, or what has been given to the independent Director of Public Prosecutions.Minister, why did you say this on 18 October when, on the basis of your own statements both before and after that date, you had been privy to police investigations?21588Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to that, I believe, is quite straightforward. When the matter was referred to the police, they, literally within a few days, came to see me, and I sat down with the police and provided them with all of the information of which I was aware. I also later made arrangements through my son for him to have discussions with the police. Obviously, I have been aware of what my son said to the police and I am aware of what I have told the police. As to the police's investigations, that is a matter for them. What the police then provided to the DPP is entirely a matter for the police. I am aware of the information which I and my son have provided them.2158814:42:0021588Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister inform the House about how Australians living in rural and regional areas will benefit from the federal government's commitment to provide better access to Medicare and primary health care services. Is the minister aware of recent comments regarding access to Medicare?21588Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I can give her three concrete examples of our commitment to better access to Medicare and primary health care services for people in rural Australia, all of which involve new initiatives of the government. The first is a commitment to severely reduce the incidence of Q fever in Australia. Q fever is a vaccine preventable illness that is common in Central Queensland and in northern New South Wales. We have been enormously successful in reducing the rate of childhood immunisation preventable illnesses. Now it is time to have a look at illnesses that affect adults. Q fever is particularly prevalent amongst meatworkers, those who deal in livestock, such as in the transport industry, or people who work on farms. It is a fairly benign illness in many people, but in a significant proportion there is chronic incapacitating lethargy for a period of five to 10 years, and in a small proportion of people there are cardiovascular complications that can cause death. We are proposing to screen 100,000 people in Central Queensland and northern New South Wales who are most at risk and offer them free vaccinations, if they indeed are not immunised. We suspect 60,000 or 70,000 people will be vaccinated over the next three years. The second thing that is a concrete commitment to people in rural and remote Australia is our decision to increase the Medicare rebate for people who are termed OMPs—other medical practitioners. In 1992, when the General Practice Strategy was imple-mented by the previous government, it was decided to freeze rebates for people who were not vocationally recognised. This has not mattered in the cities because people have substantial choice, but it has been a big issue in country Australia because a significant number of overseas doctors come in and are not able to get access to the vocational register. In a country town where there is no competition, the $5.10 difference between the vocational recognised rebate and the non-vocational recognised rebate comes straight out of the patient's pocket. As soon as we can get regulations through the parliament and make changes to the Health Insurance Commission's computers, which I expect would be in January next year, we will pay all doctors, all GPs, practising in RRMAs 4 to 7—that is, small rural towns and remote Australia—the full rebate. This is something that the honourable member for Dawson knows was raised with me when I was in her electorate earlier this year. Many members, particularly from Western Australia, have been agitating for this for some time. The third thing that the government has decided to do is to financially support the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine. We are going to give them $3.4 million over the next 18 months to develop standards for rural general practice, to look at issues around continuing medical education and support for rural doctors.The honourable member also asked whether I am aware of recent comments regarding access to Medicare. There are some very recent comments in today's Financial Review from the member for Werriwa. He proposes that consumers would be able to choose from a range of insurance options. They could either stay with the government insurer and their existing Medicare coverage or they could choose a non-government insurer. This is an opt-out proposal that is well known to the opposition. In fact, on 7 April this year, the shadow minister for health put out a press release on just this issue. She said:The universality of Medicare is its strength because it delivers all Australians access to care based on their health needs not their capacity to pay ...Medicare is the most efficient health insurance system and proposals to means test access to public hospitals or to allow the privately insured to opt out of the Medicare levy relegate Medicare to a safety net program for the `poor'.Here we have the member for Werriwa proposing that Medicare become a safety net proposal for the poor—in the words of the member for Jagajaga. To make matters worse, the member for Werriwa proposes to fund this by abolishing the 30 per cent rebate. He states that it would be financed from existing health outlays, including the 30 per cent rebate. Honourable members might ask themselves: how can a prominent member of Labor's backbench so blatantly go against the policy that the Leader of the Opposition has articulated? It is very simple. He is filling a void left by the member for Jagajaga who, even now, has failed to publicly support the Leader of the Opposition in his position on the 30 per cent rebate. During a recent interview in Queensland on the ABC the member for Jagajaga was asked by the presenter:The Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley, has been talking very much about windfall gains from the GST and reinvesting in infrastructure and in social programs, the bigger social program is the public health system.The member for Jagajaga could only answer, `Really?' The fact is that she does not have a clue what her leader is talking about in health care. She is not engaged in the health care debate. The member for Werriwa is being used as a stalking horse to have a system that will allow people to opt out of Medicare and create a two-tier health system, Medicare being for the poor.2158914:48:0021589Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, do you recall telling this House on 10 October that: ... the details on the card and the PIN have come into the possession of people unknown to me.Do you also recall telling the AM program on 16 October, the morning after the Solicitor-General had revealed the existence of Ms X, that:Well, I knew about Ms X. It was pretty obvious to me all along that this person had taken those details and effectively defrauded the Commonwealth.Minister, if Ms X was unknown to you on 10 October, why did she suddenly become known to you all along on the 16th? 21590Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I have provided the House with the details of which I was aware and I have provided the police, obviously, with a full statement. In the intervening period the Solicitor-General, for the first time, provided me, and the public obviously, with the public release of his report, with a summary of the events which he believed had transpired. Based on what the Solicitor-General said, it is entirely consistent. I provided the police with the information which I was aware of. It was then a matter for the police to investigate, which was the point I have made in the House when I was asked about it. The police did investigate. The matter did go to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It then went to the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General made a statement. That contained a statement of the facts. If my memory serves me correctly, that was after the parliament had risen. That was on the Sunday, and I responded to that.2159014:51:0021590Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister confirm recent media reporting on developments in the Australian case against the United States on lamb in the World Trade Organisation?21590Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for Groom for his question. I am pleased to confirm media reports that the interim report of the WTO dispute panel that has been considering Australia's complaint against the US on restrictions on our lamb exports has found in Australia's favour. Members will recall the US decision that was taken by the administration over 12 months ago to apply a 32,000 tonne quota on Australian and New Zealand exports, of which Australia had a little over 17,000 tonnes. As part of that they applied a tariff of nine per cent in quota and 40 per cent out of quota. At the time, the government and industry expressed significant levels of outrage at this decision in that the administration's decision went way beyond the ITC report and recommendations. We always held that the decision was incorrect and inconsistent with WTO rules. We have been energetically prosecuting the case on behalf of the Australian industry within the WTO and this interim report is certainly very welcome. It was released on 24 October. Obviously there is a process to go through yet. The final report will become available on or about 14 December, at which time there will be a 60-day opportunity for appeal. I would imagine the US will probably appeal the decision. We will continue with the industry to prosecute the case in that regard.It is a clear indication that using the rules and disciplines within the WTO to the advantage of individual exporting industries is worth while and that we can use them and we can win. Without those rules and disciplines, we would be sitting here wearing the decision that the US made. The object of the exercise is to have the quota and the tariff removed as soon as possible, and before the three years is up. We will be working in that regard over the coming months to achieve that outcome. I have read in the media some comments about seeking compensation. There are no provisions within the WTO rules to claim compensation at this stage. If the WTO makes a final decision that the quota and the tariff must be removed, which we would expect at the beginning of next year, and then the US does not comply, we can apply for compensation. At this stage, there are not any provisions to do that. An important point is that middle-ranking economies like Australia can use the WTO rules to our advantage. We can help protect our unsubsidised exports of agricultural products to go onto the world stage and compete and win—against the odds when we are competing not against industries in these countries but against the US treasury and the EU treasury in the level of subsidy that they provide. This will be a great victory for the Australian industry. It should give Australian exporters great heart, and of course the government is prepared to put a lot of resources into prosecuting substantiated cases like this on industry's behalf with the assistance of industry. 2159114:54:0021591Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, do you recall saying on AM, on 16 October, the following about Ms X, later revealed as Ingrid Odgers:It's pretty obvious to me all along that this person has taken those details and gone off and effectively defrauded the Commonwealth.Minister, on what basis did you determine Ms Odgers was guilty of fraud, and do you stand by your statement on AM?21591Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I made that statement based on the Solicitor-General's report which was released the day before.2159114:55:0021591Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House how the government is assisting businesses who are submitting their first business activity statement, particularly in my electorate of Makin.21591Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I appreciate the question from the member for Makin. 83UCox, David, MPMr Cox—No-dorothy-on-the-dollar Pete!CT4Mr COSTELLO—If the member for Kingston has a question he can stand up and ask it, but I notice he very rarely gets a question, and I can understand why. His period as adviser to Mr Willis was not a glorious one. The member for Makin is an active member, and I thank her for her question. The government is ensuring that a great deal of assistance is made available to businesses which are putting in their business activity statements. Over 4,000 workshops as well as field advisory visits and signpost offices are being made available to assist, and there will be a BAS help week from 1 November to 8 November in over 200 locations around Australia. During this week, the ATO will be offering free, practical advice and assistance to small businesses who tried—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Dial an audit!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, there is a member that interjects. I hardly recognised him. He looks so much younger. I remind him as he interjects about the business activity statement that it was actually the Labor Party's policy to go to a PAYG system of taxation which required a business activity statement to be put in on a quarterly basis. It was actually part of the Labor Party's policy for a business activity statement on a quarterly basis because it was their policy to move to PAYG, something he may have actually overlooked in his youthful exuberance.There are 50,000 places available by appointment as part of the BAS help week. The ATO has already announced concessional lodgment and payment dates. The first BAS was due on 21 October, and the date for putting it in has been extended to 11 November 2000. Businesses will not be subject to late lodgment penalties where they have made a genuine attempt to comply. I want to reiterate that point for small businesses: they will not be subject to late lodgment penalties where they have made a genuine attempt to comply. For small business, I say: do not be put off by the form; make a genuine attempt to comply.The Australian Taxation Office has also advised agents that no general interest charge or late lodgment penalty will apply to clients who lodge by 30 November as long as the agents lodge in the vicinity of 50 per cent of their activity statements by 11 November. That is a point for agents themselves: there will be no general interest charge for their clients if they lodge by 30 November as long as they get 50 per cent of their clients in by 11 November. That is also something to reiterate for the tax agents themselves.In terms of reporting, businesses can choose one of two methods. They can choose the GST calculation sheet or the `GST derived from accounts' option. The accounts method, which allows you to take it off your own accounts, may be easier and quicker for those businesses who separately record GST amounts for supplies and acquisitions they make. They do not need to complete all of the calculation boxes on the BAS. I make that point too: you do not actually have to have all of the boxes calculated if you use the `GST derived from accounts' option. So there is a pretty intensive advertising campaign going on at the moment trying to encourage small businesses not to be afraid of the BAS. We acknowledge that the first one will be the hardest one. There will be some complexity because it is just a new system. But, once the first one has been done and businesses understand that it is a unified reporting system for PAYG and GST, they can also do it in relation to fringe benefits tax and the prescribed payment system. As we collapse 11 payment systems into one this will be a very worthwhile reform. The government would encourage businesses to come to grips with that form as soon as possible. As I have said earlier, there are a number of avenues of help for businesses who need further assistance.2159215:00:0021592Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Do you recall telling reporters on 15 October in relation to Ms Odgers:I think I met her, but if I met her again I would not know her if I saw her again.Do you also recall saying on the very same day:My son and I were both staying in the same place ... From my point of view all along it's been just as equally likely that she may have taken [the details] from meand the next day:Well, I knew about Ms X.Minister, why is it that on one of your accounts Ms Odgers was so well known to you that you suspected all along that she took the telecard details from you but on another of your accounts you would not recognise her if you fell over her in the street?21592Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer is yes to the first part of the question. To the second part of the question, what I said was a fair statement in terms of my knowledge of what had happened. Obviously, I had had the benefit of sitting down with the Department of Finance and Administration and the police, and provided them with the information.2159215:02:0021592Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General inform the House about the progress of state based alternative native title regimes. Is the Attorney aware of any alternative policies that would prevent these schemes coming into operation?21592Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for his question. I am very pleased to inform the House that last week I determined that two state based native title regimes complied with the federal Native Title Act: the first relates to New South Wales, the second to Western Australia. I note that both states have governments of different political persuasions. They are, incidentally, states where Labor has supported the concept of a state based native title regime. Indeed, the opposition leader in Western Australia, Dr Gallop, has described the WA regime as `balanced and fair'. The New South Wales regimes exempt the activities of low impact exploration for minerals and petroleum from the right to negotiate. This approach is designed to complement the Native Title Act, and it comes after extensive consultation. Mining is a major industry in New South Wales, employing more than 20,000 people, mostly in rural and non-metropolitan areas, and is a major export industry for the state. The determinations will assist the ongoing viability of mineral and petroleum exploration in New South Wales for the wellbeing of both indigenous and non-indigenous people.The second determination, relating to Western Australia, introduces an alternative state provisions regime. If the determination successfully passes through the Senate, it will mean that certain mining tenements and compulsory acquisitions on pastoral leases and on reserved land will not be subject to the federal right to negotiate. Instead, they will be subject to special procedural requirements set down in the Western Australian legislation designed to suit Western Australian conditions. I made that determination after lengthy discussions with the WA government and after giving careful consideration to representations made on behalf of Aboriginal representative bodies. The determination provides certainty and efficiency for all Western Australians and provides proper recognition for those who hold native title. The resource sector is a key industry in Western Australia, and for Australia as well, earning large export dollars and providing jobs for indigenous and non-indigenous people. The determinations will be tabled in the parliament shortly and will be subject to the disallowance process. Labor has already demonstrated that it has one native title policy for Labor states and another for the rest. Labor has allowed a piecemeal native title regime in Queensland to stand and a separate regime in New South Wales to pass the disallowance process, but Labor knocked back the Northern Territory coalition government's regime. Labor has indicated it will support the New South Wales determinations but not support the WA determination. I call on Labor to put politics aside and to allow the determinations to stand, so that we can have certainty in jobs in the mining industry Australia-wide, and not just in states with Labor governments.2159315:06:0021593Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. At any time between August 1999 and May 2000, did you discuss with the Special Minister of State the question of informing the Prime Minister about the misuse of your telecard? If so, when? Why was it decided not to inform the Prime Minister?21593Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I never had any discussions with the Special Minister of State on the question of whether the matter should be referred to the Prime Minister. The only conversation I did have with the Special Minister of State was on 22 February. On 22 February I had not heard any developments in respect of the particular matter that was raised with me on 30 August 1999. I had a member of my staff ring his office to say that I wanted to speak to him. I spoke to him on the evening of 22 February. Essentially, the course of the conversation was to the effect that I had raised the matter with his department and sought an investigation back in August 1999. He said he was aware of that. I said it was well after Christmas and I was obviously concerned that the matter be investigated. He said that the matter was being properly investigated and that there was a proper process for the investigation of these matters. He said that there was an established departmental committee which had authority, subject to a process which had been ticked off by the Attorney-General's Department. I said that obviously the investigation was a matter for his responsibility and he said the matter was proceeding, that he was satisfied that the matter was being properly investigated at a high level and that all the proper processes were in place and had been fully observed.2159315:08:0021593Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Would the minister inform the House of any recent developments in the government's initiative to make Australia a global financial centre? Can the minister explain the reasons for these developments and the long-term implications for Australia?21593Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Mitchell for his question. I can inform the House that the Dutch investment bank ABN AMRO, with assets of nearly $1,000 billion worldwide and more than 100,000 employees, have announced that they are moving their foreign exchange hub in Asia from Singapore to Australia. This announcement adds further momentum to our ambition to become a global financial centre. ABN AMRO are the fourth largest bank in the world for foreign exchange transactions. They will be running 15 Asian based operations out of Australia and these operations will cover all the major global currencies. This is a significant development because it clearly illustrates how new technology is giving Australia an advantage in becoming a global financial centre. It follows the announcement from Reuters just last Friday that their Asian customer support centres for Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore are to be centralised in Australia as part of a new customer support operation. In the case of ABN AMRO, they will be running their foreign exchange book for the American time zone out of Chicago, for the European time zone out of Amsterdam and for the Asian time zone out of Sydney. In the case of Reuters, they will be running their operations for Europe from London, for the United States from Chicago and in the case of Australia from Sydney. Those sorts of initiatives are only possible because of new technology. The greatest barrier Australia has faced in its ambition to become a global financial centre over the long years has been its distance from the rest of the world—SU5Vaile, Mark, MPMr Vaile—and the Labor Party.DK6Mr HOCKEY—and, as one of my colleagues says, the Labor Party. The key reasons why these major investors are coming here and why they are saying they want to employ more Australians are that the fundamentals that Australia offers are far greater than those of other places across Asia. We offer better IT. We offer better employees. We offer better language skills. We offer in many cases a more adaptable taxation regime. Above all of that, we offer a stronger economy. What that means is jobs—jobs from ABN AMRO, jobs from Reuters and jobs from all the other players that are determined to see Australia develop as a global financial centre.2159415:11:0021594Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. At any time between August 1999 and May 2000 did you discuss with the Special Minister of State DOFA's view of 8 September 1999 that `indications from DOFA Internal Audit are that the AFP would wish to investigate' the use of your telecard? If so, when? Why was it decided to not refer the matter to the AFP at any time during this period?21594Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I have never had a conversation with the Special Minister of State about that particular minute. In fact I was not aware of its existence until it was made public in the Sydney Morning Herald in the last few days. Between 30 August 1999 and 8 May I have only ever had one conversation with the minister, and that was at my initiative because it was some months since the matter had been raised by my office and we had sought an investigation. I had heard no results of that investigation so I rang him simply to satisfy myself that the matter was being dealt with, and he reassured me to that effect. In respect of that minute, I have had absolutely no knowledge of that minute, let alone the suggestions contained within it.Censure Motion215942159415:13:0021594Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—by leave—I move:That this House censures the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business for:(1) attempting to cover up an unambiguous breach of his entitlement relating to Telecard use, until the matter was exposed in the media;(2) once exposed, attempting to evade disclosure of all the relevant facts through an ever-changing story consisting of deceptive, misleading and contradictory statements about the matter; and(3) benefiting from more lenient treatment for himself over his breach of entitlement than he is willing to afford his fellow Australian citizens.This is the first opportunity that we have had—since a series of detailed questions have been capable of being placed before the parliament due to the circumstances in which the minister found himself, through no fault of his own, at the conclusion of the last parliamentary sitting—to expose in this place the inconsistencies and self-serving character of every thing, every piece of testimony, that this minister has given in defence of himself on this matter. It has been a sorry tale of prevarication, deception, slip-sliding and blame-shifting; whatever you care to characterise it as in the spectrum of evasion, the minister has found himself located along every position in that spectrum in the course of the last three or four weeks. Today in question time we found out about another meeting, which took place in September. Of course, that leads to another line of questioning. One would have thought, in circumstances where the minister wanted to put this matter behind him and to reveal everything to the public in a forthright manner, which he has so far failed to do, that, when he paid that $47,000, he would have laid on the table every element of discussion that had passed between him and his ministerial colleagues on that matter and given a full account of the character of those conversations. The minister has not done so, and so it is that in this parliament we must, like extracting teeth from a hen, day after day after day go through the minister's various prevarications, various perambulations around the point, various excuses and various justifications, to try to arrive at the key truths of this matter. The editorial writers of the nation want this minister to go and believe that he should have been stood aside while these investigations proceeded. By a massive margin, the people of Australia do not believe this minister—only some seven per cent give credence to the point of view that he has put across—and they believe that he should go. We discover from a reputable poll of the people of Flinders that they believe that this minister should go. We know, from backbenchers moaning at the bar when confronted by friends or acquaintances in the media, that the bulk of the backbench think that he should go. The Prime Minister thinks that perhaps he should and perhaps he should not—3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Who?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Parramatta!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The Prime Minister thinks—3K6Cameron, Ross, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Parramatta!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The Prime Minister thinks that perhaps Mr Reith ought to go—3K6Cameron, Ross, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta is not in his seat and is warned!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—and, indeed, when the Prime Minister first became acquainted of these facts, he vouchsafed to the people of Australia and the media generally that he had thought seriously—indeed, had given it very detailed consideration—that the minister should go. But, when he subsequently sat down and thought about his own position in the Liberal Party and the removal of that essential sandbag between the retiring Prime Minister with one foot off the bus on the way to the golf course—a position of great vulnerability which is going to get more and more vulnerable as the year to the next election proceeds—he would rather have that defensive position in place than not. But, in the meantime, what the Prime Minister has found himself in a position of effectively supporting is this: a pair of ministers who danced around this issue for months and months. One of these ministers should have had access to a proposition from his department that this was a matter that they thought ought to be referred to the police—as it ultimately was. Both of these ministers perambulated around this issue for months and months, misleading or failing to inform the Prime Minister despite the fact that they understood completely that one of the reasons why Minister Jull's services were dispensed with in the course of the last scandal involving the question of entitlements was a failure to inform, in a timely fashion, the Prime Minister as to what had transpired. So there is little left of the ministerial code. You would have to say, after watching the performance of the Prime Minister subsequently defending his ministers—ministers found to be in a situation of potential conflict of interest, ministers found to be in a situation of repeated breaches of guidelines—that perhaps the one guideline that would remain, that would be relatively sacrosanct as far as this Prime Minister is concerned, would be: `Whatever you do to the public, whatever you do to defend your interests in relation to your own portfolio—be it a conflict of interest or not—whatever you do with the rest of the standards that I ostensibly operate by, there is one that you can't afford to breach: that is, not informing me.' That was the last standard left of the Prime Minister's code of conduct—that is, that he has a right to be informed of the difficulties of his ministers—and it has gone. This minister has put the Prime Minister in a situation whereby retaining him in office means a final breach of his last standard. This is what the government's code of conduct says about the behaviour of all ministers: Ministers are provided with facilities at public expense in order that public business may be conducted effectively ... ministers should ensure that their actions are calculated to give the public value for its money and never abuse the privileges which, undoubtedly, are attached to ministerial office.Where exactly does that standard sit now in relation to the month by month conduct of this minister? This minister will attempt to get on his scrapers and explain to the House and the Australian people what a big fellow he is for having paid back that $47,000, how it was not required of him by any civil liability that he confronted and that, as far as he is concerned, this is an action of unprecedented generosity to the Australian taxpayer and ought to be regarded as full exculpation for every situation that he has found himself in. I might add that this is a minister whose actions, despite all of that, are still under investigation by the Australian Federal Police.WI4Reith, Peter, MPPE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The Prime Minister. Mr Reith said, `Who said that the Australian Federal Police are still looking at that?' If you have news for us that that investigation has concluded, Mr Reith, perhaps you might tell us in your reply, because that will be a further piece of news to add to that about the new meeting you have referred to. As I said, the minister will try to defend himself, to justify himself, on the basis of the fact that he paid back the money. That would be convincing to some degree if that payment had occurred on or about 30 August 1999. That would have been a fig leaf on the vital parts of this minister as far as the exposure of these matters was concerned. Unfortunately, it is worth nothing at all months and months on. As every Australian knows, when you have placed yourself in breach of any of your entitlements—of all the benefits you go through, I think the maximum that you are permitted in terms of a period of grace is about six weeks on one or two of the social security entitlements—within weeks you are obliged to pay up. So, if you take the most generous of the provisions that are extended to ordinary Australians, I guess we could have said that that $50,000 would be appropriate exculpation on or about 10 October 1998, but not a minute after that. This minister, in placing himself in manifest breach, has not left himself there on his own. This minister has spent a considerable amount of time either pretending to knowledge that he did not have or having knowledge that he chose not to reveal. That is the only way you can interpret the various perambulations of this minister around his public explanations about what he has been up to. It is very interesting to go back over one or two of the questions we have asked here in question time. The minister said:I have had the benefit of some of the evidence that the police have obtained as to how this whole thing happened. He also said:DOFA gave me an analysis of the 11,000 phone calls and I have discussed that matter with them in great detail, and similarly with the police. We have gone over the details of the telephone numbers called and whom they may have been from and to and the like.Details of whom they may have been from and to. It goes through a list of all the people who could conceivably have been involved. Then, a few days earlier from that point and a few days later from the first of the quotes that I used in my question, he said:I have not been privy to the police investigations or what has been given to the independent Solicitor-General, or what has been given to the independent Director of Public Prosecutions.Then we come to this chap's performance when it came to dealing with the question of who might have had access to the PIN:... the details on the card and the PIN have come into the possession of people unknown to me.Then, six days later:Well, I knew about Ms X.In trying to have us believe in parliament today that knowing about Ms X occurred the day before 16 October, because you will remember that this is when he became convinced that perhaps this person had been involved, he said: I knew about Ms X. I would think that anyone actually taking a look at that particular proposition would assume that the speaker was not operating on the basis of 24 hours worth of knowledge of Ms X. He said:It was pretty obvious to me all along that this person had taken those details and effectively defrauded the Commonwealth.He was saying that it was pretty obvious that the person who had taken those details had gone off and effectively defrauded the Commonwealth. This Ms X is a person of whom he had been denying all knowledge a bit earlier on. Now, of course, he knew about her all along. Now, of course, she is the person who has been defrauding the Commonwealth, according to him. I might say that a reading of the Solicitor-General's propositions and the DPP's propositions does not automatically lead you to that conclusion, though it has been suggested by the minister that it ought to lead you to that particular conclusion. Of course, in the rather hasty rush to conclusions on those matters—and these are studies which now have to be redone by the DPP and by the police—no doubt there has been a concern to place the word of both the minister and his immediate family above that of any other Australian. As far as that is concerned, we will see what inquiries produce. But I tell you this, Mr Speaker: none of us would have known about Ms X, none of us would known about the $50,000—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—What about Mr Y?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—none of us would have known about Mr Y and none of us would have known about the passage of the PIN number of the minister to members of his family—none of us would have had the first idea of any of that—had it not been for the fact that it was exposed in the media by the Canberra Times. We would have hadno knowledge whatsoever. And think of how long it took for that exposure to actually take place—months and months. The minister had that period of grace to consider these matters—months and months. He did try again in one of these performances before the media to suggest, `Look, this sort of thing would have come out publicly anyway, and that is why I chose ultimately to act on it and refer it to the police.' It would have come out publicly if the minister, the ministers directly responsible for the administration of our allowances, the Prime Minister or the Federal Police chose to reveal the fact that one way or another they had knowledge of it or they had it under investigation. Of course, none of them did any of these things. So this gentleman had the leisure to sit down and work out who he was going to blame and how he was going to get out of it, for months and months.There might be a degree of sympathy extended to circumstances where other people in the ministry might find themselves in this awful situation. There might be a degree of understanding and sympathy extended to other members of the general public who might find themselves in that situation. I would find myself enormously sympathetic to the position of a person whose PIN number accidentally did fall into the hands of unauthorised parties. Were such a person to approach me as a constituent, though I have full knowledge of what Telstra's policy is in this regard, no doubt I would take that matter up diligently with Telstra to see whether I could not find a bit of time for that person to pay it back or indeed find some other way in which they might find that burden relieved.One can find areas in which in these circumstances you might find some sympathy for the parties. You can find none in the case of this minister. This minister has made an art form of lecturing ordinary Australian workers—most of whom earn on an annual basis nothing like the amount of which the Commonwealth has been defrauded here—on their work habits, on alleged rorts associated with their workplaces, lecturing them on their choice to engage in collective bargaining as opposed to taking out individual contracts, which is what he wants them to do, putting them under incredible pressure by stripping away one protection after another from their awards, stripping away the protection that collective bargaining gives them and stripping away obligations on those to bargain in good faith. That is an expression you will hear a lot of in industrial relations debates in the months to come—`good faith' on the part of employers and employees. This is a bloke who has shown absolutely no good faith as far as this entire issue is concerned. This issue does not conclude with this question time and this censure debate. Quite clearly, from the answers we have had today, there is another set of questions that we have to ask. Quite clearly, we are having to extract from this minister—painfully, day by day—more of the truth of this affair. I still find it impossible to believe that, at no point in the months and months that this was in the hands of this minister and his ministerial colleagues in DOFA, nothing was reported to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet or to the Prime Minister's office about these matters. I have been inside a government and I know how these things operate. These things are not withheld from the Prime Minister's department and are not withheld from the Prime Minister's office for months and months. It may take weeks to percolate but not months and months.Prime Ministers want to know; Prime Ministers sack people when they do not know. That makes me highly suspicious of the view, despite the assurances that we have had from time to time from this minister, from other ministers and from the Prime Minister himself, that absolutely nothing went into that office. Of course, if we discover over the next few days that something did go in, the Prime Minister will find himself in the gravest position a Prime Minister or any minister can be in—that is, he will have misled parliament because his denials on these matters have been comprehensive. If we find, for example, as we found today, that there was a meeting or a discussion in February—if we find, `Oh, we have just overlooked another discussion a bit earlier on'—this Prime Minister will be highly vulnerable to the progress of this particular matter.They have tried every smokescreen in the book to conceal the problems of this minister. They have tried every bogus comparison with situations in which other backbenchers might find themselves. That will work with the wet head, but it will not work with those who have any forensic skill at all in their analysis of politics. We know exactly where the problem lies for this government as far as this minister is concerned and we will continue to pursue it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:33:0021598Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—Obviously, the government will vote against this censure motion.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. The same courtesy will be extended to the minister or I will take action.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The opposition has raised nothing new today by way of questions during question time. Rather than there being, as is claimed in item No. 1 of the censure motion, an attempt to cover up, in fact today the information I provided about a phone conversation with Senator Ellison was volunteered by me because I was asked a question about whether or not I had had a particular conversation with Senator Ellison on a particular question which was part of the question. The reason I answered that question as completely as I did is that, from my perspective, it is just another element along the way which demonstrates the fact that I have attempted to ensure that this matter was properly investigated at all times.The claim was that the investigation had taken a lengthy period of time. I had not given much consideration to the thing when it was first raised, other than to say that I thought it ought to go off for a full departmental investigation. I was told that that was what was going to happen. After Christmas—in fact in February—I had not heard anything and I made it my business to ring up the minister and ask him to advise me that the thing was being properly investigated. That is what he said. We did not have a meeting about it. I rang him—I can remember I was in Sydney at the time and he was in Western Australia—and we had the conversation. He advised me that he had a high level departmental committee to investigate matters of this sort, that the thing was properly being dealt with in accordance with a process that had been established, and I said, `You're the minister running it,' and obviously I would rely on his assurances about it. I did not hear any more about the matter until April when arrangements were made for me to have a discussion with the Department of Finance and Administration. That discussion was on 13 April, and I have recounted that conversation. After that conversation, the department replied to me by letter dated 2 May. They replied by providing answers to various questions that arose during our discussion. I was on leave on 2 May. I returned from leave on Sunday, 7 May. I then, for the first time, saw their letter. I drafted a response. It was typed the next morning, on 8 May, and I advised the Prime Minister accordingly on that date.In response to the first question which is raised in the censure motion—`attempting to cover up an unambiguous breach of his entitlement relating to Telecard use, until the matter was exposed in the media'—the facts of this matter demonstrate that at all times I have sought to have the matter properly investigated by the proper authorities. Senator Minchin, when he was the minister, did establish a process for when any questions arose about entitlements. That process was employed when the matter came to notice on 30 August 1999. The censure motion is correct to the extent that there was a breach of my entitlement relating to telecard use. That is true. I have admitted that. I am sorry that happened. It happened back in 1994. I was then a member of the opposition. I was not a member of the executive. As the facts, I believe, completely demonstrate, there was no advice to me about this matter whatsoever from any person until the matter was raised, when a departmental official asked a member of my staff whether or not I was using the telecard. That transpired on 30 August 1999.I was asked today during question time whether I knew of earlier minutes or some contact between Telstra and DOFA at some earlier point in time. The fact of the matter is that I did not know. I never knew. I am sorry that nobody advised me. It would have been better obviously if somebody had advised me. I have said on the public record that, if somebody had advised me, I would have told them at an earlier period what I told them on 30 August, which is that I have not used the thing for years. Sure, I made a mistake; I gave my son the card details. He was going off to Western Australia. He is the eldest son. I would have to say, looking back on it, that I do not know why we were so worried about him. Anyway, he was going on a trip and I was concerned that he could get in contact with me. That was a mistake. I believe that I paid a very high price for that mistake—a very high price indeed. I did provide a cheque this morning to the relevant minister's office. It was for the sum of $47,707, minus $950 which I had already paid. The department tells me that that is the amount paid by the taxpayer, taking into account whatever arrangements the department has with Telstra. On that basis I paid for every last phone call from 18 January 1994—very nearly 11,000, except for the son's calls—which I never knew about, made by people whom I did not know to hundreds of places around the world and from hundreds of places around the world back to Australia.The Leader of the Opposition says, `Oh, well, on 30 August 1999 you knew the extent of what had happened.' He said, `I will give you some grace. I will give until 10 October 1998 to pay.' You are a bit confused. It was the year later—but let us pardon such trivialities. The fact is that on 30 August I did not know it was 50 grand. The department did not ring me up and say, `There has been 50 grand worth of calls going back five years.' The department gave me an email which demonstrated $9,000 worth of calls over the previous nine months. That is what they gave me. They did not tell me about $50,000. I know now, because I have seen it in the newspaper, that there was a minute prepared by the department in the following few weeks in September—a couple of minutes apparently, or some paperwork anyway. I have never seen that paperwork. They never told me that. I just did not know. As I said, I am prepared to accept, own up to and admit my mistakes. But, even if I had known, quite frankly would anybody with any commonsense turn around to the department and say, `Oh, 50 grand; I'll write a cheque'? Then you really would have a claim of cover-up, if you ask me. I did not know what happened on 30 August. Obviously something had happened, because I had not been using the thing. My PA wrote, `It looks like a fraud.' I said to her, `I suppose that is right, but then again maybe somebody has got my number. It has been reallocated because I have not used it for years. Maybe the wrong account has gone to the wrong place.' We just did not know. All you can do in a situation where you do not know is to say that the thing should be properly investigated.I made a mistake, fair enough. I appreciate particularly for my colleagues, but I would have to say for everybody in the parliament, that that does not reflect well on politicians. The fact is that most people in this parliament do the right thing most of the time, and everybody knows that in this place. I did the wrong thing and I am sorry it has reflections on others. As an aside, I want to say to all of my colleagues how much I have appreciated the moral support that they have provided me with at this time.That is a basic statement of the facts. Obviously the matter then came to the police. I sat down with the police. I have gone back over what I said in the parliament when I was asked about it, and the answers that I provided to the parliament when I was asked about it when we last sat were an absolutely fair statement of the circumstances. Sure, I knew that my son had somebody staying in the house that he was living in, which was our house. I knew that, but I did not make allegations about what had happened because the pursuit of the facts was a matter for the police. I had some information—of course I had some information; it was my house. It was our phone that was used. So obviously I had some information. DOFA provided me with some information on 13 April and I sat down and discussed it with the police. There is no inconsistency there whatsoever. I provided the House with a fair statement of what had happened. The police were the ones to investigate and to try and balance what had happened. It was then a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Solicitor-General. It is no good making accusations to me when the responsibility for assessing what happened had been with other people. Those other people have looked at it. Obviously, the DPP recommended that there be no charges laid, particularly in respect of my son, and I do not mind saying that that was a matter of some relief. I do not mind saying, too, that when I said that the matter should go to the police I meant, obviously, that the police should investigate each and every aspect of it. Clearly my son's actions would be subject to very close scrutiny. I did not go with him when he saw the police, and we did not organise lawyers to go down and object to questions or anything else. I said to him, and he fully agreed, `If the police want to talk to you about this matter, as they do, we should make arrangements. You should just go down there and you answer every question they ask you and give them as full a statement as any reasonable citizen would do.' And that is what he did. There have been claims of, `He declined to speak with the police again.' They are completely, totally and absolutely false.Opposition member interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Not by you, no. But these claims were made. I denied them because I had spoken to my son and he had said that that was not true. Then I saw in one of the papers yesterday that they are repeating this. This is a complete lie. Why is it repeated? Because people think that it is good—if they blacken my son's name they blacken me, and if they blacken me then that is a good going at the government as well.Opposition member interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The interjection is: `Sounds like wharfies.' I must say that you could have knocked me over with a feather when I thought I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that he was sympathetic to somebody in these circumstances. But, of course, he could not extend any sympathy to me because he disagreed with our policy on workplace relations. In fact, he has been going around the country saying, `The reason we're really after this bloke— PE4Beazley, Kim, MPWI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—This is what you have said. You have said it in the House today. You have said it publicly—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Pure hypocrisy.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—and that is—don't worry about the facts—`We disagree with this bloke on good faith bargaining or collective bargaining or something else, so he's entitled, therefore, to take any unsubstantiated claim that we can throw at him, his son or anybody else.'PE4Beazley, Kim, MPWI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The fact of the matter is that that was the statement made. In terms of an ever-changing story consisting of deceptive, misleading and contradictory statements, I believe the public are entitled to know what happened. I have been prepared to explain myself. I have been prepared to go on radio to answer questions about it, and I have attempted to do so. I read the article in the Australian that formed the basis of your questions today, and the fact is that there is an answer to absolutely every one of the allegations made. Lastly, the censurer is benefiting from more lenient treatment for himself over his breach of entitlement than he is willing to afford his fellow Australians.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The Solicitor-General did actually have a reply to that claim, and that is—not that you can duplicate what happens within government with what happens elsewhere—that basically, in an analogous situation, the person would not be paying $50,000. That is what he said, if you read his report. He also said that I had absolutely no civil liability. He went through four or five headings where the question was raised whether or not there was any civil liability. The fact of the matter is that I do not have any civil liability, but I accept the fact that I have a political responsibility. I am prepared to stand up and own up to my mistakes and to accept my political responsibilities, and I have done so by paying that cheque. I think that most people, if they were able to be apprised of all the facts of the matter, would think that that was fair treatment once the matter was revealed to me and once proper investigations and proper assessments were made by independent legal people. (Time expired)15:48:0021601Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The last time that the House sat the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business outlined his breach of the Remuneration Tribunal guidelines with respect to his telecard, how he gave the telecard number and the PIN number to his son, how it subsequently went astray to persons who he said at that stage were unknown and how he was prepared to pay back the $950 that his son had incurred at the time and when certain events had happened. Since that time, the minister has been dragged kicking and screaming to pay the full amount that the Commonwealth has incurred as a result of his breach of the guidelines. He has been forced, along with other members of the government, to provide a significantly greater amount of detail about the whole affair, which has gradually spilled out into the public arena, in spite of his best efforts and in spite of the best efforts of the government to try to ensure that the minimum amount of information was available.We now know, as a result of information that has become available in the public arena, that the picture he painted in this place three weeks ago is a tissue of deceit and distortion. It was all designed to ensure that he could be shielded from the full responsibility of his actions and, more importantly, that his son could be shielded from full responsibility for his actions. What he has endeavoured to do from 10 October, when the matter first became public, up until now is to maximise the protection that he and his son enjoy, to minimise the extent to which they cop the responsibility for these actions and for the consequences that have flowed from them, to ensure that other people—people who may or may not be innocent—carry the blame for those actions and to cover up the cover-up, the attempts that occurred last year to prevent this issue from ever becoming public, from ever being exposed to the full light of day as to what had occurred. The minister has endeavoured all along to try to minimise the extent to which the public is aware of precisely what occurred between him, the Special Minister of State, the Minister for Finance and Administration and the Prime Minister. Today we have seen a new strategy. You may recall that, a few weeks ago when this matter first came up, I talked about the multiple personalities of the minister—he moved from `Snarling Pete' to `Penitent Pete' in the blinking of an eye. Today we have a new one: we have `Whispering Pete'. It appears that the minister's approach today is that the lower the volume the less the culpability. We are clearly going to need improvements to the House's PA because he seems to believe that the way to deal with this matter is to soften his voice, go sotto voce and that that will mean the issue is less significant. The lower his voice the less serious the issue.I am afraid it will not work, Minister, because the issues that are at stake here today go to the very core of questions about standards in public life. This is not a trivial matter. It is of enormous interest to ordinary citizens, ordinary taxpayers, because they do have to pay up. They do have to account for their transgressions. Whether it is dealing with the tax office, Centrelink or minor traffic violations, ordinary citizens do have to render account. Yet this minister has sought, at every turn, to evade his responsibilities, to cover up the actions that he has been involved in, to shift blame, and to prevent scrutiny of his actions. Since the last sitting, almost every day has seen another contradiction exposed in the minister's story. He told us on the very first day, on 10 October, that he had stopped using his telecard in 1994. Yet on the Today program on 13 October he said that some of the staff calls that had been made post-1994 could well have been made by him, using the card at his staff member's home. He told us in the House on 10 October, `the details on the card and the PIN have come into the possession of people unknown to me.' Yet on 16 October—the morning after the existence of Ms X was revealed by the Solicitor-General—he said on AM, `I knew about Ms X. It was pretty obvious to me all along that this person had taken those details and effectively defrauded the Commonwealth.' He was not able to tell us about Ms X on 10 October; he was not able to say, `I know where it has gone,' he was not able to point out what had happened; but on 16 October, once it had come out into the public arena, he said, `Oh, yes, I knew about that all along.'On 15 October, again with respect to Ms X, he said, `I think I met her, but I would not know her if I saw her again.' Yet, on the very same day, he said, `My son and I were both staying in the same place. From my point of view, all along it has been just as equally likely that she may have taken the details from me.' In other words, she used to hang around with him so much that she could have been there, at his shoulder, while he was making a phone call. She could have been there trying to hear the numbers, but he did not know who she was. That is a very interesting proposition, Minister.On 10 October on 2GB and on the 7.30 Report, he said that the card could well have been taken by hotel receptionists. Hotel receptionists the length and breadth of the country were waiting to try to take Peter Reith's PIN number and telecard. Yet, in the same quote that I referred to before, he admitted that he knew from the outset that that was rubbish; the card had gone to Ms X, and the problems had arisen from the fact that his son had given the card to Ms X. Yet he was prepared to blacken the names of hotel receptionists in a desperate attempt to shift blame, to create a smokescreen, and to suggest that there were other causes for his own misdemeanours and for his own abuse. On 16 October, on AM, he said that his son, Paul Reith, `didn't really know Ms X.' That was on 18 October. This woman apparently lived in the same house as his son for five months, but he did not know her. Not only that, but he offered her a flight on his father's private jet. It is a very strange proposition that you can offer somebody a flight on a private jet when you do not actually know them. I suppose merchant bankers do strange things from time to time, but I am afraid that is very hard to understand. I think the Federal Police are going to have to organise a line-up so that Mr Reith and his son can come along and ask, `Will the real Ms X please stand up? On 3AW on 18 October, the minister said, `I have not been privy to the police investigations, to what the police have given to the independent Solicitor-General, or to what has been given to the independent Director of Public Prosecutions.' Yet, on 12 October—six days before—on 2BL, Mr Reith said, `I have had the full benefit of some of the evidence that the police have obtained as to how this whole thing happened. In a doorstop on 23 October he said:The Department of Finance and Administration were able to give me details of 11,000 phone calls from essentially the beginning of `94 and they gave me an analysis of each and every one of those ... and I have discussed that matter with them in great detail and similarly with the police we have gone over the details of the telephone numbers called and who they may have been from and to and the like. On 18 October, in the 2AW statement, he contradicted that statement. He did not know anything about the police investigation at one point but, both before it and after it, he knew all about it. On 15 October, in a doorstop, he said, `I was the one who suggested to the Prime Minister, in May, that there should be a police investigation.' Yet the Department of Finance and Administration minute to the Special Minister of State on 8 September 1999 makes it abundantly clear that it was the department of finance that suggested there should be a police investigation. It said, `It is proposed that the AFP will be provided with this information when it has been gathered, with a view to ascertaining whether it will investigate the matter. Indications from Internal Audit are that the AFP would wish to investigate.' More broadly, the government as a whole has been engaging in the same sort of cover-up and deception that the minister has. We may well recall Mr Reith saying that he stopped using his card in 1994, and yet the Prime Minister told 3AW on 20 October that when Telstra alerted the government to the misuse in July 1998, the department checked and it found that the minister was in the area where the calls that were dodgy had been made and therefore it was okay. But hang on—he told us he was no longer using the card and had not been using it for four years. The Prime Minister's defence as to why this early contact from Telstra was not revealed was, `We checked it and we found that the minister had been using the card.' Four years had gone by; that apparently is no inconsistency in the mind of the Prime Minister.Time precludes me from going through all of the contradictions in the minister's story; for example, how is it that he knew the bit in the rule book that said, `You will be provided with a detailed account of your phone bill,' but he did not know the bit that said, `You are not supposed to give the card or the PIN number to anybody else.' There are a few little contradictions like that, and these are things that we will have to leave for another day. How is it that he could claim that the repayment of the $950 with respect to his son's bills would be tabled in parliament at some stage and therefore he is not engaged in a cover-up, yet he is unable to specify precisely how that would have been tabled in parliament had the matter not been revealed in the Canberra Times on 10 October?The endless contradictions inherent in the minister's story from day one are only one part of the reason we desperately need a proper, independent judicial inquiry into this matter. Consider some of the other questions that are still unanswered. What contacts occurred between Telstra and the government prior to August 1999? Why did it take eight or nine months to involve the Australian Federal Police when DOFA advised that this should occur in September of 1999? Why do we not know who else—apart from Ms X, Mr Y, the minister, his staff and his son—used the card and whether those people were known to the minister? When was the Prime Minister's office first told? When was his department first told? Can we possibly believe that they were not made aware of this situation for a whole eight or nine months, while the minister is investigating and it is suggested that the Federal Police are involved? Can we possibly believe that the Prime Minister was not told and that his office was not told?Why did the minister ring the Telstra whistleblower, Tom Healey, on 13 October to thank him for having spotted the problem—14 months after he spotted it? Fourteen months later the minister thought, `Gee, I'd better ring this bloke up in Telstra and thank him for sorting this out for me.' What else transpired in that conversation? Why has Telstra gagged Mr Healey? Why is Mr Healey no longer allowed to talk? These are some other issues. When did the department first advise the minister to pay the money back? Why didn't he act on that advice at that time? Why did the department minute say that $55,000 was involved? The minister said it was $50,000 and now we find it is $46,000. There may be a number of reasons for that, but one of the things we have not had explained is how many calls were made by the minister over that period and to what extent that differential is explained by the calls. 4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer—He just explained it to you.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—No, he did not, Minister. Why did the Solicitor-General accept Paul Reith's statement, corroborated by his father saying, `Yes, he did tell me that,' but, when it came to interviewing Ms X, not check with her father and mother, who could have corroborated her statements? Then he reached the conclusion that she was less credible than Paul Reith. Why won't the Prime Minister release the Director of Public Prosecutions' reasons, as were released in the case of the MRI scan scam? Why did the Minister for Finance and Administration, when asked about the May 1998 contact from Telstra with the government about the customer, not mention that there was a minute that showed that there was contact in July 1998? Why did the Prime Minister, who had previously been asked to identify all previous contacts, before August 1999, that Telstra had had with the government about the situation—and he knew about it straight after question time and he promised to come back and give the information to the parliament—not reveal that he knew straight after question time that he was aware that Telstra had contacted the government about this problem in August 1998? Why have all these facts been kept from the public and from the parliament for so long? Why did the government not go public at the initial stage and say, `We have a problem; here's what is being done about it'?In conclusion, this issue is ultimately not just about the credibility of one minister; it is about the credibility of this government and, more broadly, about the credibility of this institution. It is about the credibility of parliament, of politicians and the political system—and we ignore the white-hot rage in the community about this issue at great peril. Once again we have a fundamental problem in our system exposed. While we have government investigating itself and while we have politicians investigating politicians, in these situations they will always fall prey to the temptation to dissemble, to cover up, to duckshove and to try to avoid coming to grips with the facts. We have managed in our society to move beyond the situation where we had police investigating police, so that when people have complaints against the police there is some means of independent investigation of those complaints. The only conclusion we can reach in this situation is that we need an independent umpire, if for no other reason than so the community can have full confidence that, when members of parliament and ministers have entitlements that accrue as a result of their jobs, those entitlements will be administered properly and people will not abuse or misuse them, and when there are any complaints being made or there is any question mark arising from any scrutiny of a person's conduct, there is an independent umpire—somebody who is perhaps situated within the Auditor-General's Office and has an official responsibility on a statutory basis for auditing the behaviour of members of parliament and ministers with respect to their entitlements. We need to ensure that community confidence in the democratic system and the parliamentary system, which is leaching away as a result of the behaviour of people such as the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, is restored. That can only be restored by two things in this case. In the specific it can be restored by a full, independent judicial inquiry into the minister's conduct—how the card went astray, what actions the government took, who knew—and it can be restored by establishing an independent auditor into the abuse of parliamentary entitlements. (Time expired)16:04:0021605Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—It is with great pleasure that I join with my colleagues in opposing this motion of censure. It is my view, and I think it is increasingly the view of people in the community, that the Labor Party is essentially running a vendetta against the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Of course, some on the other side may scoff and say, `What would you expect the Liberal Party or the National Party to say in defence of their minister?' But I think only one interesting thing emerged today through question time—in the 10 questions to the minister; a completely unsuccessful attack on him—and that was a comment that was made by the Leader of the Opposition. I think the parliament and the community should reflect on this. The Leader of the Opposition in his speech said that for anyone else in this situation he would have sympathy for them but not for the minister for employment and workplace relations.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—That's not what he said at all.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—That is exactly what he said. The foghorn over there might like to have a look tomorrow at Hansard and see what his own leader said. You want to reject that because you think if he said that that would have been wrong—and you are right. He did say it and it exposed what the Labor Party is basically about in this whole debate. It is a personal vendetta against an Australian who is doing a wonderful job for this country and who has a lot of strength and courage—a great deal more strength and courage than you see displayed from most people on the other side of this parliament, let me say. Here we see, exposed by the Leader of the Opposition's own words, nothing more than a personal vendetta. The Labor Party does not agree with the minister's industrial relations reforms because the Labor Party is the party of the ACTU and the trade union movement. Everyone knows that. So the Labor Party has decided, because it opposes the minister's industrial relations reforms, because it opposes Australian workplace agreements and because it opposes reform on the waterfront, that it will run a vendetta against the minister. By the way, real wages under this minister have increased. This is the minister who the workers say stands up for the workers. But trade union leaders and trade union bosses oppose him because they see him as getting in their way—getting in the way of their special privileges.UU5Horne, Bob, MP4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—Talking of rorts, what about the rorts on the waterfront by mates of the Labor Party and members of the Labor Party—some of them in senior executive positions, no doubt, in the Australian Labor Party—perpetuating and promoting these sorts of special privileges for trade union bosses!3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—What about the rorts in the South Australian Liberal Party!4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—What about the South Australian Labor Party!3J4Sawford, Rod, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Port Adelaide and the minister!4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—We would like to comment on the South Australian Labor Party, but we will not because tonight we will be watching Four Corners on the Queensland Labor Party. But I digress; I do not want to get into that. I think the fact is that the Labor Party are exposed. The Labor Party are exposed by their own leader attacking a minister personally and saying that he would extend sympathy to anyone else in the same situation. The facts are quite simple, and no attempt by the Australian Labor Party to try to show that the minister has been in some way misleading—and they had 10 questions to do that today—has been remotely successful. The minister did let his son have the card, and the minister has admitted that was a mistake. The card was subsequently abused, and the minister has said that he will pay the full amount of money that the taxpayers otherwise would have had to pay. I would have thought that was perfectly clear. The public may have been understandably exercised about this, but in the end the minister has paid the money. He said that he sent a cheque today. The minister has paid the money. I would have thought that the Labor Party would understand that that was the end of the matter. They have been backgrounding the media and building it all up to today. They then put 10 weak questions in a row and brought on a pitiful censure. They ask why we do not shout during the censure. It is very hard to get excited about the propositions being put today by the Australian Labor Party. It is hard to be emotional and excited about them. The simple fact is that the minister has repaid the money. The minister has not personally benefited from this in any way at all. He did not make those 11,000 phone calls, many of which—I have forgotten the number now—were made overseas. The minister was not making the calls. He was not encouraging the calls to be made. What are the Labor Party saying here? Are they saying that somehow the minister personally benefited from all of this? This is an absurd proposition. I think it is about time the Labor Party—which have been, along with some people in the media, appallingly opportunistic—tried to get a grip on this issue and got things into a bit of perspective. I will say one other thing. Having been a member of this august chamber myself for nearly 16 years—some would say too long I know, but I enjoy it— Government members interjecting—4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—You say 16 more! Having been a member here for nearly 16 years and having had a family involved in politics for quite some while, you learn a few things as you go on. One of the things I have learned is that whenever Labor gets into one of these frenzies—you know, they start asking questions of minute detail, trying to compare a 2GB interview with a 2UE interview, or a 6PR or a 5AN interview or whatever it is—the public start to turn off. The great danger for the Labor Party here is that the Labor Party will be itself exposed in a number of different ways. First of all, for all the energy the Labor Party is putting into this issue, what isn't it doing? It is not talking about issues of concern to the general public. It is not developing its policies. It is not encouraging a sense of inspiration that an opposition has to do if ever it is to become the government. I speak from a bit of experience here. As a child I can remember the Labor Party used to love this sort of game in opposition. I can remember Evatt and Calwell as leaders of the opposition used to run these sorts of lines, and Bill Hayden did too when he was the Leader of the Opposition. The thing about the Labor Party is that you never, ever did anything else. So the public did not vote for you, and you kept wondering why you kept losing elections. You kept losing elections because you harp on and on about something like this when the minister has fully repaid the money and explained the circumstances of the situation and when the minister has been completely transparent in his approach to this, because you think there may be some political advantage and because you want to attack the minister personally because you hate him for reforming the industrial relations system. That, of course, is the leitmotiv of the Leader of the Opposition's speech.Mr Speaker, I think the Labor Party is making a very big mistake. Of course, you run the risk of being exposed for hypocrisy. We have seen a little of that over the weekend. You obviously run that risk. But you run a deeper risk with the Australian public in that you are not talking about things that are important to them. You have nothing to say about tax anymore. You devoted every single question—that is an exaggeration; nearly every single question—at question time to the GST, up until the last month or two. You were obsessed with the GST.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I just remind the minister of his need to address remarks through the chair. I have been accused as the chair of a great number of things in the last 30 seconds.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—You have never been accused of being a member of the Labor Party.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—But I was accused of hating the minister, which I thought was just a little over the top. So I would invite the minister to address his remarks through the chair.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—Sorry, Mr Speaker. I genuinely offer my apologies to you because I know that the people of Wakefield would not thank me for making the sort of allegation I could have been interpreted as making. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the motion before the chair.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—The simple point here is that the public wonder why you ran such a scare campaign on the GST like you have never run on any other issue before and suddenly you do not talk about it anymore. Suddenly you are running a sort of monumental diversion on the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. We had roll-back. This was what you were pounding—not you, Mr Speaker, the Labor Party. The Labor Party were pounding roll-back. We have got the GST, but Labor will roll it back.The Labor Party does not have time to talk about roll-back any more because it is focusing on every minute angle it can possibly find on this issue relating to the minister. All I can say is that unless the Labor Party tries to inspire the public with a bit of hard policy and some creative and interesting ideas, unless it gets away from this mud throwing that it is so obsessed with under its current and very weak leader, it will remain in opposition. I do not mind—I would like to see the Labor Party remain in opposition until the end of time: that would suit me—but the Labor Party is doomed to remain in opposition for as long as it has nothing inspirational and constructive to say. The Labor Party has spent the last three weeks just slinging mud. Believe me, slinging mud does not win the Labor Party votes. I have explained that there are significant political dangers for the Labor Party.The last thing I would say in this debate is that I think the minister, as a minister of the Crown in Australia, has done an outstanding job for this country. I do not think people should overlook the fact that he has done an outstanding job. This country needed to reform industrial relations and, yes, it needed to reform the waterfront where levels of productivity were at appallingly low levels. The minister has had the courage to do that. He has had to be protected for long periods by the Australian Federal Police. I admit that the minister is a friend of mine. When I have been in Melbourne and have gone out to have a cup of coffee with the minister—a caffe latte, a cappuccino or, in my case, a strong, long black coffee—he has had to have with him a Federal Police officer or two. The minister has had to be accompanied by Federal Police because he has been threatened in an outrageous way by people, obviously associated with the waterfront, whom the Labor Party stands up for. Some are involved in the Labor Party. I am not sure that the ones who threatened him are involved in the Labor Party, but the unions certainly are. The minister has shown enormous courage in those circumstances.I will tell you something else. It has not been tough through that period just for the minister—but then the minister is tough—it has also been tough for his wife and his children. The Labor Party needs to understand that this sort of game can be played by anybody in public life. Two sides can play this sort of politics. The Labor Party has been pursuing these people, such as Paul Reith, and saying, `Is Paul Reith's story right, is Ms X's story right or is Mr Y's story right?' All I can say about that is that the public are right to be interested in the minister and what the minister has done, but the Labor Party attacking Paul Reith and not Ms X because Paul Reith is Peter Reith's son and hitting him over and over again is not alright. There are many people in this country who are a good deal more decent than people in the Labor Party—and that is most people in this country—and they will, in the end, condemn the Labor Party for what the Leader of the Opposition has conceded today is nothing short of a vendetta against this minister. The Leader of the Opposition's words will haunt him because he made it clear that he would have sympathy for anyone in this situation except the minister. That exposes the Labor Party for all it is not worth.16:19:0021607Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I want to contribute briefly to this debate. When we look around us at the empty press gallery and most of the public galleries it underlines what lack of interest there is in a repetition of the sort of debate we seem to have every 18 months. I am sure it has happened in parliaments past, judging by some of the comments I have heard from previous speakers. Prior to 1997 I imagine the high rate of interest would have made it attractive for that extra travel allowance or two to be claimed to help pay off apartments in this town. The member for Melbourne spoke of the credibility of this institution. While I have great respect for the credibility of it, I think out there in voter land we are absolutely losing credibility. This was noted in 1995. We have in our possession a code of conduct for parliamentarians and it has been revisited on three occasions since 1995. But at that point, under the auspices of the previous government, the major findings of a working group which produced a draft code of conduct were that such a code for Commonwealth parliamentarians should be adopted, including a parliamentary commissioner for conduct appointed jointly by both houses, and a recommendation that the commissioner should not be established under separate legislation—but be a creature of the standing orders.That was the beginning of a reform process that has been completely ignored. After 1998 there were immediate allegations which I, amongst others, raised about the conduct of members in opposing parties and ministers. The allegations covered a range of issues, from conflicts of interest to misusing parliamentary entitlements, as well as the use by staff of travel allowances during an election campaign when those members of parliament were not up for re-election—a clear breach of at least the spirit, if not the actuality, of any sorts of guidelines that should be in place. Whether it be use of a phonecard or use of a car—a privately plated DAS vehicle—the guidelines are obviously not being adhered to in many cases. There but for the grace of God go probably nearly everyone in this House, given the pressures of this job and perhaps the temptation, innocent or otherwise, to allow the use of a car to someone who has not been authorised for that purpose just to duck down the street to pick up something. These sorts of things can happen. They can only be controlled by a code of conduct that is overseen by an independent commissioner, and the sooner we move to that the sooner the public will begin to believe that this parliament is serious about any of this sort of stuff.It is time to act. There is concern in the opposition at this point, with this censure motion; and no doubt there has been concern in oppositions of the past, whether they be on the conservative or Labor side of the House. But the fact remains that the feeling out there in the electorate is very angry, not about Mr Reith's particular point but about the fact that this sort of thing underlines the fact that we have no code in place that means a crumpet. I turn to the selective use of the ministerial code. I will not support this motion, because of the inherent hypocrisy of it. However, I think there has been selective use of the ministerial code in Mr Reith's case. Back in 1997, the code was used with some force by the Prime Minister until he found that it was getting somewhat out of control. Now we have a selective use of the code, and it renders that code absolutely useless. I want to quote further from the report of 1995 on the code of conduct for parliamentarians—`code' with a big question mark, and unless we do something that question mark will certainly stick around for some time. Back in 1995, before the travel rorts—they were still two years down the track—the report said:Public attitudes to the behaviour of parliamentarians are reflected in a recent Roy Morgan poll which revealed that only seven per cent of Australians believe that Members of both State and Federal Parliament are of high or very high standards of honesty and ethics.I certainly do not enjoy being sought out and being referred to every 18 months for a comment on this. I would like to think that my colleagues and friends in this place are people I can deal with every day. If I am asked a question, I will answer it as honestly as I can. I will also look after my entitlements as honestly as I can, and I am sure 98 per cent of members in this House do exactly that. The review of travel allowances after 1998 found that only three to four per cent of discrepancies in the KPMG review of travel allowances were open to question. But it is that three to four per cent that is causing enormous damage to this institution, and that is what has to be attended to. I notice the call for an independent auditor. I have spoken with the Auditor-General over the last couple of days. The fact remains that there are not the resources in the Auditor-General's department to do the sort of forensic reactive reform—we should be talking about proactive reform—of all members' entitlements. Auditors are not expected to count each paperclip or review every transaction. They undertake tests to provide reasonable assurance that financial statements are free of material misstatement. The auditor gives a professional opinion. Five per cent or less of the relevant base amount is deemed immaterial, and therein lies the secret of our whole problem. We do not have the resources to dig beneath that five per cent or to make them accountable. There are some excellent ideas around as to how to improve the situation, and this document on the code of conduct is one way to go. An excellent private member's bill has been introduced into the Senate by Senator Murray, which I commend to all members. It suggests, among other things, a commissioner for ministerial and parliamentary ethics and also a joint committee on a code of conduct. We have it in our own hands to come up with something that has teeth. We have reneged on it; we have turned our back on it. I am certainly not prepared to turn my back on it irrespective of the sick feeling I get in the gut at every call I get on the phone to appear somewhere.I do not need the publicity out there in Calare. The people know that I am trying to stand up for standards that mean something in this country. I am not trying to sit on a high horse anywhere. In fact, I have been so sickened at times that I felt like throwing the whole thing in. But people say, `Stick in there. See if you can bring those people on side who do believe in proper standards and then get something done about it.' I have a motion that I would offer to anyone in this House to second. I am having trouble finding a seconder to put it on the Notice Paper. How pathetic is that. The motion would read:... that this House: Whilst acknowledging the vast majority of members of parliament are hardworking and honest:1. notes the damage done to the public standing of all politicians ... 2. recognises it is in the best interests of all members that the system by which they are remunerated is open and accountable; 3. requests that full details of members' entitlements and allowances, including staff travel and overtime, be tabled in the House every six months ... The Auditor-General says he needs more resources. Let us give them to him. My proposed motion would ask that the House:4. requests the Auditor-General be given all necessary extra resources ... 5. instructs the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Privileges to inquire and report on the desirability of parliament adopting an enforceable and independently administered Code of Conduct setting out clear standards of acceptable parliamentary behaviour.I will not be supporting this motion. I think Mr Reith is a man of integrity. I disagree vehemently with a lot of his policies—I think they are unfair—but I think he is a man of integrity. He is a man who has been put in the spotlight—the same sort of spotlight any of us could have been in. I will support proper reform. I will not support this motion.Question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to.16:32:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 60Albanese, 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.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B *McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.76Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andren, P.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.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 *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.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.Question so resolved in the negative.4K4AndersonMr Anderson—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Personal Explanations2161016:42:0021610Mr LATHAM,MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?K26Mr LATHAM,MPMr LATHAM—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.K26Mr LATHAM,MPMr LATHAM—In question time the Minister for Health and Aged Care misrepresented me in describing Dick Scotton's Medicare Plus health plan as an opt-out model. I have been misrepresented as under this scheme those who choose a non-government insurer would be obliged to use their publicly funded capitation amount to secure Medicare coverage. This is with respect to public hospitals, GPs and pharmaceuticals. The purchase of wider coverage would be from their own pockets. No-one would be allowed to opt out of Medicare. The minister studied under Dick Scotton at Monash and—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa has indicated where he has been misrepresented and will resume his seat.216101The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:2161023R36AE4Albanese;NehlTo The Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament.We the undersigned citizens of Australia draw to the attention of the House the anger felt by many women and women's organisations and individuals at the decision of the Federal Government to not sign the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); the Federal Government's decision to not participate in the various UN Human Rights Committees and the decision of the Federal Government to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1983 without consultation with or respect for the wishes of affected groups.Your petitioners therefore request that the House require the Federal Government to reconsider and to make any further decisions only after the Government has held consultations with those citizens likely to be affected by such decisions or as the result of consultations with women's organisations.18Mr AlbaneseR36Mr Albanese (from 18 citizens) and5Mr NehlAE4Mr Nehl (from 5 citizens)21611714HH48I4Jenkins;MartinTo The Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the extremely high price of petrol and other fuels and the increase in the amount of tax on fuel due to:The Government's failure to keep its promise that the price of petrol and other fuels would not rise as a result of the new tax system, by reducing the excise by the full amount of the GST;The fuel indexation increases on 1 August 2000 and 1 February 2001, which will be significantly higher than usual because of the inflationary impact of the GST; andThe charging of the GST on the fuel excise, making it a tax-on-a-tax.Your petitioners therefore request the House to:Hold the Government to its promise that its policies would not increase the price of petrol and other fuel;Support a full Senate inquiry into the taxation and pricing of petrol;Consider the best way to return the fuel tax windfall to Australian motorists.604Mr JenkinsHH4Mr Jenkins (from 604 citizens) and110Dr Martin8I4Dr Martin (from 110 citizens)21611180BV5AdamsTo The Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the financially burdensome and discriminatory nature of new sub class of sponsored visitor visa introduced by the Federal Government.Your petitioners therefore request the House repeal legislation and or regulations which impose a $5,000 security bond as part of the conditions of this new sub class of visa.Your petitioners further request the House repeal this legislation and or regulation if it is demonstrated to be discriminatory in its effect against people from any country.180Mr AdamsBV5Mr Adams (from 180 citizens)21611331R36AlbaneseTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that the Government make all residential rentals GST free including rental on sites paid by residents of relocatable, manufactured home villages or parks and residential parks..The GST on site fees unfairly discriminates against residents living in relocatable, manufactured home villages or parks and residential parks. The Government promised that no-one would pay GST on rent and this is an anomaly which allows village/park/residential owners to charge GST on site fees.Your petitioner's request that the House of Representatives do everything in their power to make rental on sites GST free.331Mr AlbaneseR36Mr Albanese (from 331 citizens)2161164DK6HockeyTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Commonwealth of Australia.The Petition of parents and supporters of our non-government school brings to the attention of the House the cuts being made to the funding for education of children attending non-government schools by the NSW Government. These cuts are claimed to be as a result of the impact of the Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment (EBA) policy on Commonwealth funding for NSW government school children.The undersigned Petitioners ask the House of Representatives to support choice in education by:Directing the Commonwealth Government to immediately review the EBA policy to remove flawed and inconsistent aspects of its application.Directing the Commonwealth Government to take initiative to resolve the present dispute with the NSW Government over the Commonwealth's funding for schooling and to agree upon fair, just and responsible policies for the resourcing of schooling.64Mr HockeyDK6Mr Hockey (from 64 citizens)2161115WI4ReithTo the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion: That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We therefore, the individual, undersigned Members of St George's Anglican Church, Red Hill, Victoria 3937, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.15Mr ReithWI4Mr Reith (from 15 citizens)216127758V5WorthTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:We the undersigned citizens of Australia, call upon the Minister for Immigration not to deport Mr Bernard Lesi of Gilles Plains, South Australia in October.Mr Lesi has a wife and two infant children. Deportation will devastate the family emotionally and will bring great hardship to his wife and children.We therefore request that the House reject the deportation order and encourage the Minister not to deport Mr Lesi and to allow the family to stay in Australia.775Ms Worth8V5Ms Worth (from 775 citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business216122161216:45:0021612Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I 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.In Australia we are now doing business in a global economy where economic borders are becoming more porous and diffuse. Conducting our business with the handicap of a prohibition on parallel importing is an unsustainable situation. The prohibition on parallel importing is effectively a non-tariff barrier to trade that creates a marketplace with monopolistic characteristics. As a consequence, consumers are the losers through inflated prices and a restricted range of product. In 1998 the coalition government successfully argued to dismantle the restrictions on the parallel importation of compact discs and some other branded goods. It was an initiative that was met with great resistance by members on the opposite side of the House. In arguing the case for the multinational sound recording industry, Labor forecasted that the government's consumer-friendly reforms would decimate Australia's local music industry. All of Labor's prophecies have proven groundless. The Australian music industry has not collapsed and, if last week's ARIA awards are any indication, the industry is thriving from emerging talents such as Killing Heidi, Powderfinger and South Australia's Kasey Chambers.In 1998 Labor, sounding almost triumphant, predicted that 50,000 jobs would be lost due to the government's decision to make CDs cheaper. Labor were almost triumphant in their announcement of those potential 50,000 job losses. Instead, the retail sector for compact discs is in fact growing strongly. Indeed, in my electorate of Sturt a CD retailer commenced operation not more than a kilometre from my electorate office only a month ago. Labor's warning that the market would be flooded with pirated products has also proven to be baseless. Instead, Australians are enjoying appreciative savings on CDs and a greater range of products to choose from. Dismantling the prohibition on parallel importing of CDs has been an unqualified success.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Who says that the prices of CDs have gone down?9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—The member for Grayndler obviously has not been purchasing CDs lately, which surprises me. I would have thought that, as he is a newly married man, he and his wife would be enjoying the lower prices of compact discs and purchasing CDs together to listen to at home. It is against this backdrop— R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Maybe old CDs are cheaper—maybe the daggy things that you listen to!9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—I do not listen to daggy CDs, Member for Grayndler. In fact, you would be surprised at my eclectic range of tastes with respect to music, as I am sure the Minister for Veterans' Affairs will attest. It is against this backdrop that the coalition government needs to move to extend the principle of allowing parallel importing of books and computer software products. In 1992 a report by the Prices Surveillance Authority found that the differential between Australian and United States software prices was 49 per cent. Subsequent independent analysis indicates that the differential has narrowed over the last decade. The Australian Consumers Association estimates that at present Australians are paying 25 per cent too much for software. A report to the government by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission showed that over the past 10 years Australian small businesses have had to pay an average of 27 per cent more for packaged business software than their United States counterparts. But this could soon change for the worse—849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—Bring them in, close us down!9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Far from trying to close you down, Member for Braddon, the government is proposing that small businesses pay less for their software, which has to be good for small business. Far from closing small business down, that bane of the cheat, the ACCC, has proposed that we help small business by reducing the cost to them of computer software—but, of course, I would not expect you to understand that. This could soon change for the worse. The Sydney Morning Herald reported last week that Microsoft Australia has announced a 10 to 18 per cent increase in the retail price of its software products, effective from December. Microsoft cites exchange rates as the reason behind the price hike, but there is little doubt that the price rises are largely due to a lack of competition in the software market. This impacts on all facets of the Australian economy. The Yellow Pages Small Business Index of February 2000 showed that 84 per cent of Australian small businesses and 100 per cent of medium sized businesses use a computer and therefore require computer software. The current monopolistic arrangement of allowing only one importer to source software product does not serve the long-term interests of consumers. Lifting the prohibition on the parallel importing of computer software and allowing people to compete in the alternative sourcing of products will help push down the price of software and promote product innovation and development. The primary benefit of dismantling the prohibition on parallel importing is an increase in product choice and lower prices for consumers. But there are other, peripheral arguments that support the removal of this barrier to trade. Labor's policy of preserving restrictions on parallel importing fails to recognise that globalisation—and, in particular, the Internet—has made domestic distribution monopolies redundant and obsolete. It is estimated that online spending in 1999 by Australians was worth about $920 million. Some industry sources say that by 2001 e-commerce in Australia will be worth as much as $1.3 billion. There are real concerns as to how much of this billion dollar industry is being captured by Australian e-retailers. Figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show 1.3 million purchases were conducted online during the year to August 1998—two-thirds were through offshore web sites. This is revenue that the Australian e-commerce industry lost. Some industry figures—including Software Engineering Australia chief executive, Phil Scanlon—believe that removing import restrictions will give Australian e-commerce vendors a boost. Mr Scanlon reasons that Australian e-commerce vendors are presently at a disadvantage compared to United States vendors, as they are barred from approaching foreign goods wholesalers directly. Mr Scanlon argues that the import restrictions also deter global corporations from locating their operations in Australia. Restrictions on parallel importing have prevented Australian retailers from purchasing products from the same source, and at the same price, as overseas e-commerce retailers. As a result, Australian online retail prices are not as competitive as their overseas counterparts. This is a situation that the member for Braddon and the member for Grayndler would happily keep in place.TK6Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr Southcott—They are troglodytes.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—They are troglodytes. Sadly for young people, they are troglodytes. The member for Boothby is quite right. Geographically, Australia is in a strong position to compete for online business against the United States in the lucrative and expanding Asian market, but that means being able to purchase the products at the cheapest possible price, which is what the coalition would like to be able to do for them.In the last two parliaments, Labor have repeatedly demonstrated a reluctance to embrace new ideas, whether it be tax reform or private health insurance initiatives. Labor are giving Australian consumers every indication that, despite being proved wrong on the deregulation of the CD market, they are prepared to trundle out the same tired old arguments in the current parallel import debate.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Just because Wham CDs are cheaper.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—As a 1980s child, I am a great fan of Wham. They have moved, and now we are a fan of more modern music, especially some of our own home-grown South Australian music.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Name them.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—I already have. I named them earlier in my speech. People like Kasey Chambers, Killing Heidi and Powderfinger.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—Never heard of them.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—You would never have heard of them. Of course you wouldn't. You are the troglodytes on the Labor side of the House. Mr Deputy Speaker, I must get on with my address—R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member opposite is not only insulting members with personal remarks but also misleading the House, because Killing Heidi are in fact from Victoria.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member will resume his seat. Honourable members will cease interjecting.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—It is proving very difficult to give a speech on a quite important subject. By standing up for the vested interests of multinationals, Labor are again attempting to hoodwink Australians into believing that the domestic market will be flooded with pirated products. This is a disingenuous argument. By making imported products cheaper, the government is actually eliminating one of the main reasons why consumers buy pirated goods: inflated prices. Piracy is best dealt with by efficiently allocating resources for Customs and increasing penalties for infringers. There is no evidence that preventing import competition will address piracy concerns. Labor's plan to wind back the government's initiatives that have lifted import restrictions on CDs will not work. Their 30- and 90-day `use it or lose it' rule will not result in cheaper prices for imported goods that are in demand. Instead, Labor's policy entrenches the monopolistic advantage that many multinationals currently enjoy in Australia. By removing the restrictions on parallel importing, there is potential for price falls of around 30 per cent in the cost of books, computer games and various software applications. Surely this kind of initiative that makes educational material cheaper for all Australians would be an important plank in Labor's yet to be released knowledge nation policy. Instead, Labor is supporting cosy monopolistic protection for multinational cartels irrespective of the interests of consumers. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?TK6Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr Southcott—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:55:0021614Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I rise to respond to this motion on parallel importing. It is typical of the Sir Humphrey Appleby modus operandi of members opposite. They put out these wonderful private member's motions supporting the government's initiative when they know full well that exactly the opposite occurs from what they have said in this motion. For example, the first part of the motion says that the House recognises that easing restrictions on parallel importing will result in cheaper prices for Australian consumers. We all know that is just not true. In 1998 the federal government allowed parallel importing of sound recordings, and the promise of lower prices to consumers has largely not materialised. However, Australian record companies are now threatened by often pirated imports and Australian musicians have been subjected to reduced royalties, making it even harder for them to succeed in what is a very competitive world. My colleague the member for Braddon, who will follow me, himself a very fine musician, knows this only too well. The motion also acknowledges that easing restrictions on parallel importing will allow Australian consumers to enjoy a greater range of products. The move will result in an increase in pirated video games and computer software flowing into Australia, substantially undercutting the Australian industry, and will allow surplus foreign books to be dumped on our shores. The printing and publishing industry—which the member for Sturt did not even mention once during his 10 minutes—and authors will face similar pressures when the government remove parallel importation prohibitions from books. I will have a lot more to say about that shortly.The motion also asserts that easing restrictions on parallel importing improves product information and development. What a lot of rubbish. I spent some considerable time researching for this debate and, going through all the newspaper cuttings, I failed to find one industry group that actually supported this move. For example, in the Australian on 18 July there was an article headed `Online game over, industry fears'. It read:Open door video import rules would kill off local players. Leading computer game industry executives have lashed out at the Government's decision to relax parallel importation rules on computer and video game software. Sony Computer Entertainment chief executive Michael Ephraim says that the government has made a big mistake which will cost jobs and badly damage Australia's game development industry. Ephraim says the Government just does not have a clue about the industry, which he says has the potential to earn millions of dollars of export revenue. That was just one of industries. I next quote from the Australian of Tuesday, 4 July headed `Import changes favour pirates'. It reads:AIIA—which is the Australian Internet Industry Association—has attacked the government for lifting software import restrictions ahead of the final report on the issue. The AIIA has attacked the decision because there was no concrete evidence for the government's assertion that parallel imports of software have any impact on software prices and that there was an import monopoly on software, or that companies deliberately delayed the release of software in Australia. I now quote from the Financial Review, which said:Senior government sources yesterday confirmed that the GST will drive up consumer prices across a range of software products and was a big factor in the government bringing forward this plan. So obviously the GST has impacted on it and the government has brought in these measures to try and lessen the impact of the GST, that tax that nobody wants. Another article in the Australian says `Disastrous cultural consequences await'. This is from Wednesday, 12 July. It says:The move would mean that the independent Australian publishers, who paradoxically tend to lead the game quantitatively at the moment, would lose the value of their continuing list. The potential damage to Australian publishing in the longer term could be alarming. There seems to be remarkable unanimity—YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce Scott—You can't read your own writing.83XGibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS—I did not write it. I am quoting—it is a bad photocopy. It continues:... in Australian publishing that, if this decision is put into effect, it will put the independent publishers at risk.As the member for Sturt failed to mention, this move will impact most severely on the printing industry. I have a keen interest in the printing industry because the biggest industry in Maryborough in my electorate is the printing industry. Some 700 jobs are involved there with some $22 million worth of wages being injected into that very small community. Maryborough has a population of around 8,000 people. So the printing industry employs 12½ to 14 per cent of its total work force, in my calculation. Obviously, the industry there is very concerned about the potential consequences of the decision. In the Age on 1 July, Mary Dalmau, the Group Manager of Readers Feast bookstores and former President of the Australian Booksellers Association, said that she did not expect prices to fall: On the calculations and investigations we did last year, we should not anticipate that there would be significant price decreases at all because the changes that have been put in place since 1991 have really ensured that the publishers have given us the best possible access to books.Luke Stolley, the Chief Executive Officer of the Printing Industries Association of Australia, says that the ramifications could be quite horrendous. He estimated that, on a conservative basis, the industry would lose some $30 million in book production and a further $11 million in the supplying of paper and that the result could be the loss of more than 400 jobs. That figure is very conservative indeed. Phil Andersen, the National Director of the Printing Association, said that, with the opening of the market in Australia, Australia would also be opening itself to dumping, unlike any other sector. Anti-dumping legislation does not apply to books. The criteria does not apply to books because they are all the same and there is no protection whatsoever against dumping. Mr George Gatehouse, Divisional General Manager of McPherson's printing group, which has a big plant in Maryborough, said that a quarter of the families in Maryborough, where his company, the Australian Printing Group, prints books, were dependent on the industry. He said that the move to scrap import restrictions would have a bad impact on the whole sector, trickling down to paper suppliers, binding houses and typesetters. The two book printers there employ 700 people between them and associated industries would represent another 300 employees. So you can see that not one sector of the industry has applauded this decision. Labor is committed to making Australia a knowledge nation. As a knowledge nation, Australia would take its place in the world as a creator of new ideas and unique cultural content. Labor's parallel importation policy will ensure that Australian consumers have access to locally produced culture and content and to the latest products from overseas. Labor's policy gives consumers access to goods at internationally competitive prices. Further, under Labor's policy, Australian printing, publishing, computer software, video games and music industries will continue to provide employment and contribute to Australia's economic and culture growth. Labor will preserve the modified `use it or lose it' parallel importation regime which did exist for the book industry. This regime will be extended to apply to the video games, computer software and music industries. Under Labor, the importation of goods for which there is a local copyright will be permitted only if (1) the copyright owner does not release the material on the local market within 30 days after publication or international release or (2) the material, although released locally, is unavailable for purchases within Australia or is unavailable within Australia at an internationally competitive price within 90 days of that good being requested. The regime is commonly known as the `use it or lose it' regime. Australian publishers, computer software and video game distributors and record companies will have an exclusive copyright in a good or material as long as they exercise that right in a way which benefits Australian consumers. The use it or lose it regime will ensure that Australian consumers of books, video games, computer software and music will continue to have access to Australian goods which would not be developed without the competitive advantage which parallel import restrictions give to the Australian industry and will have access to the latest international releases at a competitive price. Labor's policy will result in consistency across these industries and will ensure that there is a proper balance between supporting Australia's cultural industries and promoting consumers' interests. Labor's policy will ensure the development of Australian content within the creative industries. It will foster Australian culture and Australian jobs. The use it or lose it regime will give protection to copyright owners against the importation of cheap, pirated goods and dumping of underpriced overseas residual products. 17:05:0021617Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I am very happy to support this motion. It is a good motion which should deliver benefits to consumers. Most of the same arguments we heard about removing the parallel import restrictions on CDs have been echoed today. In a nutshell, the situation is that multinational publishers do divide up markets and decide which products to release to different markets. At present, if you are affluent enough to travel frequently, then you have the ability to go to some of the large book emporiums like Borders and Barnes and Noble in the United States or Waterstones in the UK and you are able to see all the books that are not available in the Australian market. If individuals travel there, it is possible for them to purchase books and return with them to Australia. I think we should allow the same range that is available overseas in different markets to be available in Australia and let the market decide whether people want those books. The dividing up of markets by publishers is most strikingly shown by an example I remember from when I was a student. Cheap medical textbooks, special South-East Asian editions, were available in Singapore. They were exactly the same edition that we used in Australia but were often half or one-third of the price. Recently, a biography on Henry Kissinger, China Wakes by Kristof and Wudunn, was not available in Australia but available in the United States or available via Amazon.com.In April this year the Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee released its report into parallel importing and recommended removing the restrictions on parallel imports. Specifically, it recommended that the restrictions should be retained only if they advanced the goals of copyright and the intellectual property system more generally in ways that could only be cost effectively secured by these restrictions. Consumers are now able to buy music, videos, books and computer software direct from the Internet. What this does is erode a domestic distribution monopoly. In Europe, parallel import restrictions are banned. The committee went on to conclude that doing this would not damage the Australian economy. Lifting the restrictions would reduce the price of books and software. Computer games are currently 33 per cent more expensive in Australia than in the United States. Paperback books were 50 per cent higher in price than in the United States and 12 per cent over the UK price. There are some business software programs and popular personal computer games which are also higher. In 1998 Australia lifted the restrictions on the parallel imports of CDs and the price did fall from $A31 to $A24. The advantages of removing the restriction are cheaper products and no wait for books and software to become available. When New Zealand did this, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research found that the prices of CDs and books were as cheap as anywhere in the world.The government will also maintain antipiracy measures. There is no evidence in New Zealand that removing the parallel import restrictions has increased piracy. The same arguments that were raised about CDs have been raised about books and video games. Piracy is occurring now and piracy is independent of parallel importing. For example, the Napster web site allows people to download music from the Internet. In July 2000, Software Engineering Australia supported the government's initiative, saying it would help e-commerce and maximise innovation and creativity. The restrictions have prevented Australian retailers getting the same price as overseas e-commerce retailers. Therefore they have to charge more online. This has been an impediment for Australian based e-commerce retailers. In short, Australians should be able to have books, software, printed music and magazines as soon as they are available anywhere in the world. I encourage the Attorney-General to release his legislation to amend the Copyright Act as soon as possible. 17:09:0021618Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—The member for Sturt wants this House to recognise that easing restrictions on parallel importing will result in cheaper prices for Australian consumers. The government has scrapped parallel import provisions on music and CDs—and have prices dropped? No. He wants us to acknowledge that easing restrictions on parallel importing will allow Australian consumers to enjoy a greater range of products. Can the members for Sturt and Boothby really be believed on this issue? What benefits will there be for Australian industry, for small business and for jobs? None. The member for Sturt would also have us believe that easing restrictions on parallel importing improves product innovation and development. So does it encourage and enhance investment and create business opportunities for Australian companies? No. Indeed, a big question mark hangs over the government's interest in parallel importation.I suspect this is nothing more than another instalment of the coalition's economic rationalist policies so blindly followed by the member for Sturt. What is his motivation for this? All the evidence so far, certainly where I come from, does not support his grandstanding on this issue. Remember that supporters of the legislation to allow parallel imports of music CDs told us it would drive down the cost of CDs. There is no substantive evidence to suggest it has. In fact, the free-falling Aussie dollar has actually resulted in increased prices for imported music. As I was told at the weekend by an employee of a music store in my electorate, all it has done is put the squeeze on small independent retailers even further because they do not have the buying power of the major chains. Is that good for small business?I note comments from the Australian Music Retailers Association in its submission to a Senate committee report regarding parallel imports of sound recordings under the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997, which said:Small business retailers have been deserted by the Coalition government, in spite of its recognition that small business is the `engine room' of the economy. Government policy in this matter actively works to destroy a section of that `engine room'.It goes on that it:... will have a disastrous effect on small music businesses while offering little or no ultimate benefit to Australian consumers.That is quite prophetic, it would seem. Is it good for the Australian music industry which, because of this government's dismissive attitude toward copyright entitlements, now faces the threat of cheap, often pirated imports? As my musical colleague the member for Bendigo asked, are these anticopyright policies promoted by the coalition's obsession with parallel importing good for Australian musicians, who are getting less in royalties for their work? I think not.I refer again to the Senate report and comments from the manager of Savage Garden, Mr John Woodruff. He said:If you own the rights to something and you pay for them and you develop them and you promote them, you should be able to protect them ... If any of you owned or controlled exclusive Australian rights to any property, be it Nike or McDonalds, and a licensee from an international territory was allowed to export into this country over the top of you, then you would never invest again. I find this argument astoundingly simple and cannot understand which part of this the Coalition does not comprehend.Groups like Savage Garden—I would suggest they would be a very Savage Garden after this—are paying the price for this type of legislation. As usual, this government is raising more questions than it has answers to. Two years after allowing parallel imports of CDs, the government now plans to do the same for books and computer software. Again, the promise of cheaper prices for software is questionable. But to do the same for books has quite rightly raised the ire of our paper manufacturing and book printing industries. I know of the concerns in my electorate and the likely consequences for paper making mills at Wesley Vale and Burnie. It would have a significant impact on their businesses. I am advised that losses in paper production nationally would amount to some $11 million a year. It would also cost jobs in the paper making industry. Where I come from we cannot afford to lose one job. Unlike the coalition's approach, under Labor's policy Australia's music industry, paper manufacturers, publishers, and computer software and video game distributors will maintain exclusive copyright of their goods, but only as long as they exercise that right to the benefit of Australian consumers—that is, a use it or lose it policy. That means that local copyright holders are bound to market their goods 30 days after international release or they lose their exclusive right of import. The same applies to goods being made available for purchase under the 90-day rule. That is responsible parallel importation policy as distinct from the economic-rationalism-gone-mad policies of this government. (Time expired)10000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.2161917:15:0021619Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I 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.This matter was first brought to my attention by a constituent, Mr Ken Johnson of Belmont, and has since received widespread support throughout Australia and from overseas, with many people seizing the opportunity to sign petitions. Every Anzac Day we as Australians turn our thoughts to those who have given their lives and suffered in war so that we might live in peace. `Lest we forget,' we say; and yet, in a way, we have forgotten. We have forgotten to properly recognise a man who has become the very epitome of Anzac: Private Jack Simpson Kirkpatrick. Jack Kirkpatrick was not born in Australia but he was born with the larrikin spirit. A member of the merchant marine, he jumped ship after hearing that war had been declared and, fearing that as a deserter he would not be allowed to enlist in the army, enlisted as Jack Simpson on 23 August 1914.Jack was sent to Gallipoli with the 3rd Field Ambulance as a stretcher bearer. He soon found that, with the assistance of donkeys, he was able to rescue injured soldiers single-handedly. In the last 24 days of his life, he rescued over 300 people while under direct enemy fire. That is 12 to 13 people a day. You may think that one such rescue would be enough to see a man awarded the highest possible honour, and you would be right. But for Jack it was not to be. He was officially recommended for the Victoria Cross on 3 June 1915 by his commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Alfred Sutton, who wrote of Simpson:It is difficult to get evidence of any one act to justify the Victoria Cross—the fact is he did so many.Colonel Monash—later General Sir John Monash—in a submission to Divisional Headquarters said of him:Simpson knew no fear and moved unconcernedly amid shrapnel and rifle fire, steadily carrying out his self-imposed task day by day ...Why was the Victoria Cross refused? Because of a mistake in the application. In 1967 Australian leaders sent a petition to the British War Office, asking that this tragic error be rectified. Again the award of the Victoria Cross was denied, on the ground that it would set a dangerous precedent. In fact, just such a precedent had already been set with the posthumous award of the Victoria Cross to two British officers 28 years after their deaths.In my campaign to have Simpson awarded the VC, I contacted other members on both sides of the House, and I thank those who gave me their support. I also wrote to the Prime Minister to seek his support. I was astounded to find that that support was not forthcoming, neither was a reply. Instead, I got a letter from Bill Heffernan, on behalf of the Prime Minister, which said:Despite the admiration and affection that Australians have for Simpson, it is no longer possible to support further recognition as you have proposed. There were so many Australians who served heroically during World War I, many making the ultimate sacrifice. To now single out one brave soldier of this period would not be appropriate. The judgements of commanding officers of the time on how Simpson's service was recognised should be respected and their decisions allowed to stand. That is exactly the point: the judgments of the commanding officers of the time should be respected—Simpson should be awarded the Victoria Cross. Every Australian schoolchild learns of the brave deeds of Simpson, who along with his beloved donkeys risked his life on countless occasions. A visit to the Australian War Memorial Museum is testament to the high esteem in which Simpson is held. Even the museum shop sells many items honouring Simpson and his donkey, such as the figurine I have in my hand and the badge I am wearing on my lapel. I have here a few comments from ordinary Australians who have signed an Internet petition. From Victoria:How sad it is that we have to sign a petition for this ... Hang your heads in shame.From New South Wales:My grandfather served in Gallipoli in 1915, was wounded and returned to Australia. He always talked to my father about Simpson and his donkey and my father passed these stories to me ... For him to be awarded Australia's first home-grown Victoria Cross can only add to the honour of any future Australian VC winners.From Tasmania:A true Anzac hero is not recognised for his bravery, courage and great self-sacrifice. Wake up you politicians, and give him the medal he deserves!From the ACT:Surely we can recognise Simpson, who gave his life for others. His actions typify the most noble of man's qualities.From South Australia:I believe Simpson's valour should be recognised.From the United States:As the son of a World War I, 8th Light Horse Regiment member, I too add my name. Simpson's recognition has been too long in coming.From the United Kingdom:How can modern day politicians possibly see themselves better versed in the events surrounding John Simpson's actions than the officers who recommended him for the VC?And, finally, from Turkey:As an Australian living near the Gallipoli battlefields, I can say that Simpson's grave is the most visited grave. Most visited because if there is just one Anzac that Australians know, it is Simpson.As I said, these are just a few comments, and the support for my campaign continues to build. Today I received a letter from Mr John Kershaw, from Fleetwood, England. He is a member of the Gallipoli Association, and he wrote to express his support and admiration for Jack Simpson, whom he calls `a very brave man'. Let us continue to bow our heads with pride on Anzac Day. It is a shame that, after all this time, we cannot properly recognise one of our greatest Anzacs. If the Anzacs were here today, I'll bet there would be quite a few who would be surprised that we have not listened to our own officers of the day. They would wonder why we have not done the right thing and properly recognised our hero.Jack Simpson is not the only brave Australian who deserves our recognition and admiration. There have been many—Able Seaman Edward `Teddy' Sheean is one who springs to mind—but I do believe it is entirely appropriate to begin with Simpson and for him to receive the first Australian Victoria Cross. I would like each of you to take with you today this poem, sent to me from Western Australia and written by one of Simpson's fellow soldiers at Gallipoli:Along the tumbled hills that lieBeside the oldest sea of allThe Diggers saw him passing byAnd heard his answer to their callAnd well they knew him, although to But few of them his name was knownAnd broken was a mateship trueWhen Simpson's donk came back aloneHe sleeps beside the sapphire wave,But ever shall his spirit liveHe knew not men would call him braveWhen giving all he had to giveHe'd take a wounded cobber's weightIn arms that ease and hope would bringAnd proved himself a dinkum mateWhen mateship was a living thing Again the scrub has over-runThe hillside paths where Simpson wentWhereon his splendid deeds were doneWhereon his glorious hours were spentBut there's a roadway that shall lastThat no wild growth can ever claim:The roadway up which Simpson passed To the eternal halls of fame.Just think about those heartfelt words for a moment. Prime Minister, how can you not open up your heart and correct the injustices of the past? I call on you to do the right thing and to do everything in your power to see that Jack Simpson Kirkpatrick is posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross. The deeds of Jack Simpson have earned this, the memory of the Anzacs demand it, and the Australian people expect no less. 17:25:0021621Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—There is no doubt about it: John Simpson Kirkpatrick, `the man with the donkey', is immortalised in the Australian spirit, and he certainly does represent the Anzac fighting spirit and the tragedy of Gallipoli. He is well known from the legends that have grown since that day back in May 1915 when he died with a sniper's bullet through the heart. His efforts in bringing the wounded out on his donkeys—which he procured following his landing at Gallipoli on Anzac Day—have lived on through the course of my lifetime and through that of my father.In that regard, the member for Shortland is certainly tapping into a great sense of national pride in Simpson and what he represents. In many ways, I think that the concept of giving Simpson a Victoria Cross downgrades the status that he already enjoys in Australian hearts and minds. I would suggest that it is a matter of great frustration to Australians, 85 years after the fact, that no government at that time—including the Labor government when all of these deeds took place all those years ago—and no government since has seen fit to review this. One would suspect there must be some reason why this man, this legend in my grandfather's lifetime, has not been dealt with properly.It is my understanding that the VC for Australia accords recognition to persons who perform acts of the most conspicuous gallantry, acts of valour or self-sacrifice, or who display extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy. Those are the criteria. Nominations are to be supported by signed statements of at least three witnesses of the act for which the award is recommended. Wherever possible, these statements should be on oath, and awards are to be made with the approval of the Queen by an instrument signed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister for Defence. The other problem is that it is very difficult to review any particular incident of World War I and to reverse the decisions taken by the commanders without creating a precedent for unwanted and perhaps divisive comparisons to be drawn between these hindsight awards and those recommended and granted at the time by those most involved. Recommendations for decorations are best made by the commanders on the spot, who certainly have a better knowledge of the totality of the circumstances surrounding an incident than those who conduct a review many years later. That is the brief that I have from the department. I do not want to be accused of attacking motherhood—I am not intending to do so—but it is important to discover the reasons why this matter relating to Kirkpatrick, otherwise known as Simpson, the man with the donkey, was not dealt with. I am led to believe that the closure of the End of War List—those who were recommended for some sort of award from the First World War—occurred some six months after Armistice Day all those years ago and that therein lies the problem. Whilst I agree with the sentiment of giving awards, medals and so forth, I am also very gravely concerned that, in doing so, we are breaking down the award structure and the prestige attached to the Victoria Cross for Australia.The VC for Australia was established in 1991 under the previous government. It is the pre-eminent wartime decoration. It should not be given lightly. It continues on the tradition of the Imperial VC, instituted by Queen Victoria in 1856, and I am indebted to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Scott, who is at the table, when he says it is still the same Victoria Cross. In fact, the conditions established by the Keating government or the Hawke government—things changed quickly in those days—are exactly the same. They are mirror conditions to those laid down in 1920. The fact is that Simpson was posthumously mentioned in despatches for his action. As the member for Shortland said, there are a variety of records of what occurred in those days. There certainly are those who say there were many acts of great bravery that occurred, and there may or may not have been a clerical error which led to Simpson being mentioned in despatches rather than being awarded a VC—and I believe that it does not happen that you get two big awards for one big thing. Therein lies the difficulty with the sentiment being somewhat detached from the reality of dealing with these issues. But I have to say that in my own electorate there is greater pressure on me to address a number of other factors. This government since coming to power has done a lot of the housekeeping of a more contemporary nature than the Simpson matter. The Far Eastern Strategic Reserve was a matter that needed to be addressed, and Minister Scott and Prime Minister John Howard have dealt with it and have delivered a greater sense of justice and outcome to those, mainly men, who were involved in that particular action than had been the case before. Likewise, World War II veterans, who for so many years after the end of that war juggled their paperwork to qualify for gold card status and the assistance that it brought, now find that, as World War II veterans aged over 70 with the qualifying service, they are being well facilitated by this government. Of course, it would be quite wrong for me to say that all is complete. As a private member in this place it would be wrong for me to not reflect upon the next set of things that I think we should be looking at. The gold card is one matter. Korean and Vietnam veterans aged over 70 who have had a similar qualifying service—although, of course, in a different theatre to the World War II veterans—rightly expect, and I believe should receive, the same treatment. They are over the age of 70 and have qualified from a service point of view. I believe that it should be not only World War II veterans but also those aged over 70, and I have had reason to write to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to express just that view and I will continue to do so. Likewise, I believe that the National Service Medal needs to be looked at. There is a proposal from those who were engaged in national service since 1951. The 50th anniversary is next year. Those men and women who were prepared to—perhaps a little against their will—serve Australia through national service in times of war should be identified. The Veterans' Entitlements Act is the most generous in the world—that is well understood—but there are, of course, other claims still outstanding. I look forward to hearing more about the claims from those nurses who went to Vietnam who believe that, having served Australian troops in that theatre, they likewise may need some additional assistance. Seeing the minister is here, it gives me a chance to mention another matter, that is, the civilian war prisoners of Japan. There is an organisation based in part in my electorate, which has my full support, that represents the remnants of the 1,200 Australian citizens who were held as internees by the Japanese during World War II—women and children who now need support and who are not recognised under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. The number of people who are now represented by this organisation totals just 400. These people were in countries in South-East Asia invaded by Japan. They were interned as prisoners of war and suffered the difficulties and traumas of those days and are still carrying a lot of the psychological, emotional and medical scars. I understand that the Japanese are considering matters and that the appellant court in Tokyo will be making a judgment on this in early 2001. The members of that organisation spread throughout Australia will be rightly looking to see what the appellant court does.I raise these matters in the context of this motion from the member for Shortland to try to illustrate the fact that the agenda on matters to do with veterans' affairs is very full. Every time the government addresses one of the issues and deals with one of the problems that have been left undone despite the generosity of the system, another one very quickly and readily takes its place. The Simpson matter is another one of those on the list. I could not rule out that the centenary of Simpson's death might in fact incur a revisitation of this, but who is to know? At the end of the day, though, our Veterans' Entitlements Act and the act which governs imperial awards and honours and national awards and honours in this country are very complete and should not be the only recourse for celebrating the contribution of an individual. John Simpson Kirkpatrick is in Australian folklore. He is an Australian legend. He is in badge work. He is in our hearts and in our minds. (Time expired)17:35:0021623Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—It is a great pleasure to be able to speak to the motion proposed by the member for Shortland. Private John Simpson Kirkpatrick, the man with the donkey, was a true hero in all senses of the word. Those of us lucky enough to have spent time visiting the area of Turkey known to all Australians as Gallipoli, marvel at the feats of bravery displayed by Australian and New Zealand soldiers over 85 years ago. Gallipoli holds a special place in my heart. My father, Robert Quick, fought there as a member of the 7th Battalion. As a child I listened to his stories of what transpired in a place that seemed so far away and read with interest his notes and diary excerpts. It was not until 1995, on the 80th anniversary of Anzac Day, and I was privileged to actually visit Gallipoli that the whole Anzac story fell into place for me. Wandering across the battlefields, exploring the trenches at Lone Pine, The Nek and Quinn's Post, clambering Shrapnel Gully and wading out into Anzac Cove—all things my father had done as an 18-year-old—to experience first-hand the impossible task given to the Anzacs, one cannot but be struck by the bravery of all concerned. The motion before us seeks to posthumously award the Victoria Cross to one of the bravest of the brave, a fearless young man who served his king and country without any thought for his own life. As Patsy Adam Smith says on page 122 of her wonderful book The Anzacs:There had to be a hero. The people demanded one. Wholesale slaughter, wholesale bravery are too immense for the puny human imagination to grasp; they overwhelm and depress the collective mind. So there was a hero. But this one was different. This was a man as redolent as a gum tree, as Australian as a kangaroo, a real colonial spirit. He had scarcely begun his task when he was killed, and with the slower communications of the time, he was dead before Australia knew he was alive. But they were sure that they knew what a hero looked like.One of the tragedies of Simpson, the man with the donkey, is that most, if not all, Australians were taught to revere him as a sort of hero in the fictional mould. Private Simpson was a real man and, when he died, real men wept in the sight of others.My father never had the privilege of meeting Simpson. Dad arrived at Anzac Cove on 26 May, a week after Simpson's death. My dad, however, spoke in glowing terms of the men of the field ambulance who worked tirelessly to assist the many wounded to safety and treatment. Simpson was a legend at Gallipoli and an inspiration to all who had the honour to serve there. C.E.W. Bean wrote of Simpson:On the night of April 25th he annexed the donkey, and each day and half of every night he worked continuously between the head of Monash Gully and the beach, his donkey carrying a brassard round its forehead and a wounded man on its back. Simpson escaped death so many times that he was completely fatalistic. The deadly sniping down the valley and the most furious shrapnel fire never stopped him. The Colonel of his ambulance, recognising the value of his work, allowed him to carry on as a completely separate unit. On May 19, he went up the valley past the water guard where he generally had his breakfast, but it was not ready. `Never mind,' he called, `give me a good dinner when I come back.' He never came back. With two patients he was coming down the creek bed when he was hit through the heart, both the wounded men being wounded again.It is ridiculous in the extreme to believe that one of the finest and bravest young men ever to serve in the Anzac campaign was denied a Victoria Cross on a technicality. No award was made to Simpson, as one single act of valour was what the citation called for. It is interesting to note some of the comments of the soldiers of the time. One of them there said: I can honestly say that these lads performed deeds of great heroism and utterly fearless bravery sufficient to warrant the issue all round of VCs, but nobody of high enough military rank saw them. We, their mates, saw it all.I would like to endorse the remarks of the honourable member for Shortland. I think it is time, despite the fact that this man was a legend in his own lifetime, that we got through all the bureaucratic BS and red tape and issued this man, as we head towards the Centenary of Federation, with the award that he so rightly deserves.17:40:0021624Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—The member for Franklin talked about the need to find meaning amidst the killing at Gallipoli and a nation's need for heroes. There is a sense in which, when we talk about Private John Simpson Kirkpatrick, we are really talking not just about a man or about a soldier but about a nation's idea of itself. We meddle in this question at our own peril because Simpson has certainly assumed the role of the pre-eminent Australian soldier icon. There is no military figure who would be half as well known, from the most humble private to the most celebrated general as this one man and, curiously, his donkey. I think there is something characteristically Australian about the way in which Simpson has been canonised in our culture. Frankly, it is difficult to rouse much enthusiasm to oppose a motion such as the one that the honourable member has put. It would be like opposing a motion that we should be more grateful to our mothers or that we should tell our children we love them. Simpson is clearly an enormous figure in the national psyche of the Australian people, and so he should be.On 19 May 1915, 42,000 Turkish soldiers resolved to make one last effort to blast 17,356 Anzacs back into the ocean at Gallipoli. They began with the most sustained attack of machine gun artillery and sniper fire. The day saw intense fighting in which 168 Anzacs were killed—and we ought to recall that it was a day in which 3,000 Turks were also killed. It was on that day that this man, who had led something of a charmed life, made his last trip up the pass, up Shrapnel Gully, to collect the wounded. His reputation had grown over the previous 24 days because of his apparent indifference to fear. He was fired upon frequently. In fact, the donkey which was eventually the last one was one of several. These donkeys, which were used as water carriers, had been shot from underneath the troops they were rescuing. But he carried on with a great sense of humour and a lightness of spirit in the face of this incredible danger. In fact, Monash said in his citation that Simpson knew no fear and moved unconcernedly amid shrapnel and rifle fire, steadily carrying out his self-imposed task day by day. He frequently earned the applause of the personnel for his many fearless rescues of wounded men from areas subject to rifle and shrapnel fire.Whenever you scratch the surface of a legend, you find the complexity of the human character underneath. Certainly Simpson was a man whose distinction in his last 24 days of life on earth was something of a contrast to his earlier 19-odd years. As one of the previous speakers mentioned, he did desert the British Merchant Navy at Newcastle. It appears that his principal objective in joining the AIF was to return to England. He was absolutely radical in his politics. He hated class distinctions of any kind. He described himself as a rabid socialist. There must be some question of whether he would have accepted a Victoria Cross under those circumstances. Nonetheless, through the mix of this alloy, through this alloy of human nobility and frailty, emerges this man to whom, whether or not this government decides to award the Victoria Cross, the Australian people have awarded the honour which it will forever be his to retain, and that is that he is the most celebrated, the most emblematic, the most iconic figure in Australian military history.10000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Gash)—Order! The time allotted for private members business has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 104A. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Committees216252162510000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Faulkner has been discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and that Senator Crowley has been appointed a member of the committee.Grievance Debate21625Question proposed:That grievances be noted.2162517:46:0021625Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—In this grievance debate I want to talk about the shoddy treatment Australians receive from the major banks. Supposedly in the quest for efficiencies and cost savings, but in reality in the push for bigger and bigger profits, the major banks turn their backs on the very customers whose loyalty has helped to build the strong banking sector we see today. We see in the media almost daily that Australian banks have announced further branch closures while recording gigantic profits. In the financial year ending June 1999 the ANZ Banking Group declared a profit of $1.48 billion, the Commonwealth Bank $1.42 billion, Westpac $1.46 billion and the National Australia Bank $2.821 billion. That is a combined total profit of $7.2 billion. These figures prove that the banking sector is secure and is able to show enormous profits even in what it claims are difficult times.What is not secure is the loyalty and commitment of the banks to the people of Australia. In spite of these fabulous profit levels, the major banks are turning their backs on their customers—and in particular rural communities—by closing branches and walking away, in some cases leaving a trail of devastation. There is one thing that small country towns can always bank on—the threat of being turned into a town with no bank, and a town with no bank is often a town with no future. Many smaller communities that lose their bank branches wither and die because people from surrounding districts have to go elsewhere for banking services and almost always undertake their household shopping purchases in the same larger areas that still have bank branches. So all the other small businesses contract and the general community suffers a major reduction in living standards, all because the major banks decide to turn their backs on people who live in country and remote areas. Australia's bigger banks do not understand the term `good corporate citizens' and would rate at the bottom of the list.In June 1993 there were 7,064 bank branches operating throughout Australia. In June 1999 there were 5,358. That is a reduction of 1,706 branches. This means that one in four bank branches throughout Australia have closed during that period. That is, 284 banks closed per year—on average, one for every working day of every week of every year. More than one-third of these branches were in small country towns—that is, one country bank branch closed every three days. Some country towns saw as many as four or five bank branches disappear completely. The job losses in banking have been just as phenomenal. Some 40,000 jobs have been shed in the 10 years since 1990, according to Bankwatch.Bank branch closures cause severe hardship to customers irrespective of whether they reside in our capital cities or in regional or rural communities. The decision to close bank branches impacts particularly on our elderly and those who are disadvantaged by being disabled, unemployed or part of the ever increasing number of working poor. Some farmers and small business owners can also be described as `working poor'. They struggle to survive whilst living in poverty. It is these groups that are most disadvantaged by bank closures. Bank closures are part of the assault by economic rationalism and coalition governments on country Australia. They have gone hand in hand with the closure of country schools, hospitals, railway lines and vital state and federal public services. Each closure has pulled out vital services, jobs and pay packets and slashed at the viability of our small country towns. The assault continues with the coalition's plan to sell off the remainder of Telstra.There is one bank that is addressing this problem, and every effectively. Which bank?—I hear somebody ask. The Bendigo Bank, of course. Bendigo Bank is Australia's only regionally based bank. Formed in 1858 as a building society, it converted to bank status in 1995, at which time it was Australia's oldest and Victoria's largest building society. Bendigo has declared a profit in each year of operation, even during the depressions of the 1890s and the 1930s. Bendigo Bank is a publicly listed company on the Australian Stock Exchange and is owned by more than 22,000 predominantly individual shareholders. It has total assets of more than $4.5 billion—total funds under management exceed $5 billion—and market capitalisation of more than $400 million. The company operates more than 100 branches and employs more than 1,000 staff. Bendigo is a supplier of diverse financial and allied products with a strong customer service focus. Bank and subsidiary services include retail banking, commercial banking and finance, funds management, insurance, superannuation, trustee services and foreign exchange. The focus is on consumer markets and small to medium sized businesses. The group's operations are focused on Victoria. It operates branches and public agencies throughout Victoria and southern New South Wales, with outlets in each of Australia's mainland state capital cities. Business is also sourced through mobile banks and a network of referral agencies.In January 1999, Bendigo Bank and Elders Australia began a joint venture company to deliver banking services to primary producers throughout rural Australia. The company marries Bendigo's banking expertise with Elders's distribution outlet of some 280 branches Australia-wide. In March 1999, the bank announced a joint venture with IOOF—Bendigo Investment Services—to deliver funds management and advisory services through the bank's branch network. As part of these alliances, both Elders and IOOF acquired substantial shareholdings in Bendigo Bank. Both companies now hold around six per cent of the bank's stock. In April 2000, the bank announced an alliance with Tasmanian Trustees to form a joint venture company to provide retail banking services throughout Tasmania.In the same month, the bank announced an alliance with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia with a long-term aim to provide retail banking at pharmacies in communities not served by bank branches. In May 2000, the bank launched Australia's first ethical bank deposit fund with Ethical Investment Trust. This fund will benefit the work of Community Aid Abroad. In 1998, the bank devised and launched the innovative and exciting concept called Community Bank. This sees the Bendigo Bank partner local communities which operate franchised Bendigo Bank branches. Twenty-eight are currently open. A further 11 have been approved and are shortly to begin trading. The bank has received about 1,000 inquiries and expects between 50 and 60 Community Bank franchises to be in operation by the end of 2001. Local investors raise the start-up capital and become shareholders in their own banking venture. Bendigo Bank provides the banking infrastructure and coverage of its banking licence, and the community and the bank share the revenues. Shared responsibilities mean shared rewards. Profits made by the local company would be retained with the twin objectives of paying shareholders a reasonable return and reinvesting into local enterprise or community projects.The first Bendigo Community Bank was established in the small Victorian communities of Rupanyup and Minyip. Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, you would be well aware of those small towns. I want to quote from a paper by Bendigo Bank managing director Rob Hunt, which illustrates perfectly the difficulties that small towns are forced into when the big banks pull out and the advantages of community banking to these small communities. Mr Hunt said:The last bank branches in Rupanyup and Minyip closed on the same February day in 1997, ending a century of branch banking in these neighbouring towns on the Victorian Wimmera's wheat plains. Rupanyup residents suddenly faced a 100km round-trip from `Rup' to Horsham to bank; Minyip's residents could head in the opposite direction for Warracknabeal, a mere 80m round-trip.You can imagine the inconvenience this caused most of the local residents, not to mention small businesses. Mr Hunt continued: Across Australia the stories were the same—people powerless to stem the outflow of government, local government and business services essential to modern living.A 1996 study of NSW and Queensland towns which had lost bank branches brought the problem into stark focus. It affirmed that locals did indeed take their shopping with them when they banked—to the tune of around $4000 per head per annum. It also discovered unpredicted side-effects: credit was harder to obtain for locals and they were less likely to want to borrow, bad debts to local professionals increased and personal savings dropped dramatically. There was clearly a need for a banking solution which delivered both basic banking services and a commitment to local prosperity.There are 1100 people in the `Rup/Minyip' catchment. Counting children as part of their parents' shareholding, no fewer than 750 have a direct stake in the success of their branch. Not surprisingly, given this level of participation in the venture, the business boomed. It reached its 12-month predicted business volumes in just seven months. By the time its first anniversary rolled around, more than three-quarters of the local people were banking at `their bank branch', which had begun returning monthly operating surpluses. Five new jobs were created, business takings in the towns began to increase again (to the point where the Rupanyup supermarket expanded) and the community has a `can-do' attitude and is much better placed to produce better outcomes.We believe successful communities create and attract successful enterprise and Rupanyup and Minyip have certainly improved their prospects of doing so.The Bendigo Bank's community bank is breathing new life into small communities where the service has been established. Most of these are turning a profit—sometimes of around $10,000 per month—in just 12 to 18 months. Other small businesses in these depressed areas are starting to grow again as a direct result of the presence of a local Bendigo Bank franchise in the community. It is also good business for the Bendigo Bank. Equally important is the sense of pride in these communities that is generated by owning and profitably operating their own bank, whose profits are returned directly to those communities. If the Howard government demonstrated even a tenth of the innovation, commitment and understanding of rural and regional Australia shown by the Bendigo Bank and the communities who are benefiting by the Bendigo franchises, regional Australia would not be in the difficulties we are in today.The Bendigo Bank is also involved in a number of innovative products and services like the Bendigo Stock Exchange, a regional development fund, Bendigo telco, and a range of other services, all of which are aimed at enhancing the business sector in regional Australia. I will have more to say on these ventures at another time. If honourable members would like more information on the Bendigo community banking concept, they should contact the Bendigo Bank's Community Bank Development Team on 1300 361 911 or visit the bank's web site at www.bendigobank.com.au. (Time expired)2162717:56:0021627Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—As members of parliament, we should have a clear set of priorities when Commonwealth budgets are framed. Simply put, how do you rate the importance of reducing debt, cutting tax or increasing government expenditure? I am on the side of, firstly, reducing debt and, secondly, cutting tax; and I think the third priority should be increasing government spending. They are the Liberal Party's priorities and the National Party's priorities, and they are the parameters that we operate within. The Labor Party, I think, would have an inverse set of priorities. We do not talk much about small government any more, but we should. In the area of health, much of the policy focus is directed towards the primary aim of constraining public expenditure on health. We have been very successful at this, keeping expenditure on health at about 8½ per cent of GDP, with life expectancy and health outcomes some of the best in the world. Medibank Private was established in 1976 in competition with private health funds. Since 1998 it has been separated from the Health Insurance Commission and made a public company wholly owned by the Commonwealth. It has 25.5 per cent of market share and is a not-for-profit organisation.Given the success of the government's 30 per cent private health insurance rebate, and also Lifetime Health Cover, I do not see any reason why Medibank Private should remain in government hands. In the year 2000, we have the Chinese government and the government of Cuba privatising state-owned enterprises. There is no need for the Commonwealth of Australia to be in the private health business. Private health is already heavily regulated to ensure equity objectives so there is no need for a government insurer. At present, the government does not receive an income stream from Medibank Private. Medibank Private is a not-for-profit organisation. Another owner such as a bank or insurer may be able to provide economies of scale as well as complementary banking and insurance products. As private health insurance is highly regulated, the removal of Medibank Private from government ownership is unlikely to have an effect on competition in the market. It has been estimated that it could raise about $350 million, the net value of its assets, or even up to $500 million or $1 billion. This is money that could be used to further reduce government debt. That would free up the money that we are spending on interest on our government debt, which would then be available for government expenditure. It would also help things like the Australian dollar, which is under so much pressure, by enhancing the government's fiscal credentials. Medibank Private at present is in a sound position, with profit of $57 million in 1998-99, which was 45 per cent of the total industry profit when Medibank Private is only 25 per cent of the industry.The opposition to this view states that selling Medibank Private would send premiums through the roof. I do not buy that. A privatised Medibank Private would be constrained by the market. Over the last two years, since the government introduced our 30 per cent private health insurance rebate, we have seen negligible premium rises. I stress this is a personal view. This is not a government view. I think it is an option worth exploring. I think the reasons why Medibank Private should be in government hands are no longer there and I would support examining the privatisation of Medibank Private.2162818:00:0021628Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—This evening, I again raise in this House my grave concerns regarding bank closures by the big four banks in my electorate of Lowe. Associated with these concerns are the issues of bank fees, the remuneration of bank directors and the general distribution of banking services in Australia.Last Friday morning outside the National Australia Bank in Drummoyne, the shadow Treasurer, the Hon. Simon Crean, and the shadow minister for financial services and regulation, Senator Steve Conroy, joined me along with a large crowd of angry local residents in a demonstration against the closure of yet another bank branch in my electorate. We were also joined by Geoff Derrick, the New South Wales Secretary of the Finance Sector Union, Phil Davey and other representatives of the CFMEU, Drummoyne Councillor Angelo Tsirekas, Ashfield Councillor Emma Brooks-Maher, the Mayor of Concord and President of the Local Government Association, Councillor Peter Woods, Strathfield Councillor Andrew Ho and the President of the Homebush Main Street Committee, Mrs Marlene Doran. Nine bank branches from Drummoyne to Homebush have closed in Lowe since I became the member two years ago. The National Australia Bank boasts that it alone has closed some 88 branches over the last 12 months and that it intends to close a further 100 branches in the next year concomitant with a scandalous 50 per cent hike in its fees and charges. I would like to quote from a letter dated 16 October 2000 that I have received from Mr Peter Pilkington, President of the Strathfield Chamber of Commerce. The letter reads:We in the community felt the necessity to set up our own Community Bank because of the closures of so many bank branches, the total lack of services from the bank and the unreasonable charges levied by them. We hear consistently that the costs in savings are for the shareholders ... The shareholders that are benefiting from these changes are not the mum and dad shareholders but the directors of the banks e.g. Mr Joss of Westpac and Mr Smedley of Colonial State Bank who walked away with multi-millions of dollars in shares and rights ... We earnestly urge you and every Member of Parliament to get behind Community Banking as the best way to show the big banks that their customers are prepared to vote with their feet. What is the rationale behind these bank closures? The answer to this question is found in the two instruments that are relied upon by the banks and used in the moral justification of their actions: the Wallis report of 1997 and the Prices Surveillance Authority report of 1995. I have repeatedly called for the implementation of community service obligations for the banking industry. The reason for such community service obligations is that banks occupy a unique function in the economic freedom of persons to enjoy access to their own money. This is a fundamental right of every person. People should not have to pay to have access to their own money. People should not have to travel inordinate distances or use complex and inaccessible means to access their own money. Yet this is exactly what the banks demand and expect payment for—the privilege of access to our own money. The reports of the PSA in 1995 and the Wallis report in 1997 state that government should not impose a community service obligation. In particular, the PSA report specifically noted that the reasoning was that the major banks owe no special social or community service obligation to the community. The reasoning then was that regulation of bank fees and charges and minimum standards of `bricks and mortar' banking services was not necessary due to the emergence of a deregulated banking market and the technological advances in access to banking services. The PSA report states that:Governments directly address a comprehensive policy approach, including the issue of community service obligations, to the problem of essential services provision to remote communities, given trends of rationalisation of privately provided services (including banking) ...The gist of the PSA and Wallis reports was that community service obligations were financially `inefficient' and therefore should be rejected on this basis alone. Further, if minimum service standards were to be imposed by legislation then society generally should pay for this via the taxation system. In other words, it is being recommended that if we want bank branches back then we, the taxpayer, must pay for them. I note from the reports that these arguments apply equally to the provision of banking services in the cities. These arguments are false. They are false because they rely on the premise that the rationale for distribution of services refers to diseconomies suffered by remote banking or, in other words, that the assumptions underpinning the necessity for a community service obligation for remote banking areas were based on the marginal diseconomies of servicing remote areas—not metropolitan ones.I am not the federal member for Parkes or Gwydir. I am the federal member for Lowe, a seat in the inner west of Australia's largest city. I do not represent the constituents of the town of my birth of Dunedoo, with a population of 800. I represent the residents of major urban areas such as Drummoyne, Five Dock, Strathfield, Homebush, Enfield, Burwood, Concord, Croydon, Haberfield, Ashfield and the City of Canada Bay. It appears that the diseconomies argument spares no-one any more. Under the rationales of the Wallis report and the PSA report, absolutely nothing is sacred any more. It is clear that the Wallis report and the PSA report never foresaw the day when metropolitan as well as regional branches would be closed in such large numbers. This trend of branch closures shocks the senses. It is a level of greed that has shocked an entire community, an entire nation.It is not being suggested that rationalisation was good for remote branches but not for metropolitan branches. Rather, it is the extent to which this decimation of community service standards has been unleashed by the banks—and justified by the Wallis report—on all Australians, whether regional or metropolitan residents. This collapse of standards has clearly demonstrated the dishonesty that underpins the application of the findings of the Wallis and PSA reports in the conduct of the banks. What is this dishonesty? The dishonesty lies in the banks' use of this rationale to suit their immediate ends of profit taking. The banks have used the Wallis and PSA reports selectively, in relying on certain conclusions which are, I stress, based on specific presumptions. But these presumptions no longer apply. What are those presumptions? The key presumption is that community service obligations specifically contemplate regional and remote services in their findings. The concept of a comprehensive policy approach did not envisage or recommend the wholesale collapse of bricks and mortar banking. That is drawing far too long a bow. Nor did these reports envisage the day when so many in our marginalised community would effectively be denied bricks and mortar in our banking services. Who are the marginalised and dispossessed? They are the frail, the aged, those without computer literacy skills, those who cannot use telephones easily, those who are economically precluded from holding small bank accounts, those who are unable to travel without some form of assistance and those small businesses who need banking services in their immediate vicinity. The list of dispossessed is large and growing. They are, to use the banks' own appalling language, `low value customers'.In light of the fact that the underlying policy rationale for the conclusions in the Wallis and PSA reports has been fundamentally compromised, is it time to revisit their conclusions? I and my parliamentary colleagues Simon Crean and Stephen Conroy say yes. We call on the Howard government to immediately convene meetings with the banks and community groups and to begin work on establishing a social charter of community obligations. It is clear that the banks cannot be trusted to service minimum standards of community obligations. They have had their chance and they have betrayed the most vulnerable.The banks are out of control. Jobs are being lost. Every premise that the banks make of a more robust, economically viable banking system is predicated on their lust for profit at any cost to the community. In fact, all talk about deregulated banking services and increased competition is a lie. Banking in Australia is a monopolistic oligarchy of four major banks totally dominating our economy and holding it to merciless ransom. These four banks make Ned Kelly look like Cinderella. The banks have demonstrated their contempt for low value customers, their love affair with the major corporate shareholding community and their love of fatter salaries, shareholdings and options for those executives and board directors. They are gangsters without guns.I urge the Howard government to call for public meetings with a view to introducing genuine competition and competitiveness into the banking industry. The banks must be made accountable to their customers and we must ensure that the Howard government ensures that minimum standards of service are delivered to customers. Finally, I urge everyone to get behind people like Councillor Emma Brooks-Maher and Marlene Doran, who are pushing for the introduction of more community banks and more competition in the community so we can drive down bank fees and charges and make the banks accountable for the dishonesty that they are visiting on mainstream Australia.2163018:10:0021630Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—One of the great pleasures involved in representing an electorate encompassing more than two million square kilometres and more than 90 per cent of the largest state in our federation is that every so often I have the opportunity of attending events like the Northern Australia Forum held at Katherine in the Northern Territory from the 19th to the 22nd of this month. The federal electorate of Kalgoorlie encompasses the Kimberley, Pilbara and Gascoyne regions of Western Australia in their entirety, so the forum was always relevant to the interests of a vast number of my constituents. During my visit to Katherine, I was very pleased to catch up with delegations from Wyndham, Derby, Broome, Port Hedland, Karratha and Carnarvon and to listen to their problems and suggestions for the future direction of community development in their regions.Residents of those areas of our country to the north of the Tropic of Capricorn can be characterised by their resolute and pragmatic approach to life and work in the face of numerous natural and man-made obstacles. The harsh extremes of the northern Australian climate—which range from extended periods with temperatures above the old century mark to the unrelenting storms and flooding of the annual wet, and include up to a dozen cyclones each year for good measure—are factors in need of constant accommodation by primary producers as well as those involved in mining operations, fishing fleets and transport. The fact too that a relatively small population is thinly dispersed over such a wide and, at times, inhospitable landscape also gives rise to unique difficulties in the provision of many basic services that residents in metropolitan areas take for granted. Despite these difficulties and obstacles, the peoples of Northern Australia are not in the business of begging for special handouts or of otherwise seeking special treatment on the basis of their residential address. They do, however, ask for a fair go from governments at all levels and of all persuasions to ensure that facilities and basic infrastructure in their regions are maintained at a consistently high standard. During the Northern Australia Forum, this government received a great deal of positive feedback from constituents about the many initiatives we have put in place to redress the negative imbalances that exist between city and country living. I know that the regional services, territories and local government minister, Senator Ian Macdonald, has been heartened by the community response to forum sittings this year, as I have been. However, I want to use my time in today's grievance debate to urge my colleagues on this side of the House not to rest on their laurels, because there are still plenty of concerns in our northern zones that need to be addressed if we are to maintain the present goodwill that exists towards this government in country centres.This government's record in terms of regional and remote area development is unparalleled in comparison to the 13 years of centralisation and neglect that characterised the Hawke-Keating administration. Recently, for instance, Senators Alston and Campbell announced a $150 million contract to provide untimed local phone calls throughout the extended telecommunications zones, while Dr Wooldridge announced the extension of the full Medicare rebate to cover consultations by `Other Medical Practitioners'. Additionally, a growing number of my constituents—not all, but I will say that the number is significant—have contacted me through surveys and direct correspondence to congratulate the government on the introduction of the new tax system. In fact, they say that the new system should have been brought in years ago.However, in light of these developments, a universal concern to arise from the Northern Australia Forum was the progressive decline in the real value of taxation zone rebates. As most members of this House would be aware, zone rebates can be claimed by taxpayers who have lived in a remote region of Australia for at least six months. The rebates were designed to recognise the disadvantages faced by residents in these areas in terms of climate, isolation and the high cost of living, in comparison with other, more populous areas. When the zone rebate system was commenced in this country, the real value of the sum amounted to approximately five weeks pay per year. In the electorate of Kalgoorlie, where plenty of employment opportunities existed, this represented a considerable incentive, and the rebates made a tangible contribution during economic downturns such as the so-called recession we had to have. I am informed that these days the real value of the rebate amounts to around half a week's pay per year and is quickly swallowed up by higher commodity prices and the current price of fuel. So, even though residents of Australia's remote taxation zones are undoubtedly benefiting from the substantial income tax cuts which this government instituted to coincide with the introduction of the goods and services tax, inherent inequity continues to exist between the cost of city and country living.I have said it before in this House, and I will say it again: the only way to fully and properly address this imbalance is to establish a taxation zone rebate scheme which genuinely and accurately reflects the differential between the cost of living in metropolitan areas and the cost of living in more remote rural areas. Currently, a single person living in the remote area zones with no dependent children will receive an annual rebate of just $338. This does not go very far when you consider that in some of the larger service towns within my electorate this will not even cover the extra cost of the daily newspaper for a year. I believe I have also raised before in this House the fact that housing in the major population towns in the electorate of Kalgoorlie is not only dearer than comparable housing in Perth; it is more expensive by a staggering 37 per cent. The problem that I and my constituents see is that, while the implementation of the new tax system has resulted in lower prices for many items that were formerly afflicted by Labor's hidden wholesale sales taxes, the differential remains. I would even venture to say that in recent weeks, as increases in fuel prices have started to bite, it has widened. The amount of GST paid by remote area consumers is greater than that paid by city consumers, due to the already inflated base price, a price directly affected by transport costs and mark-up based on reduced turnover and lack of competition.The major problems of northern and remote areas are the result of low population. At present, the great majority of towns are experiencing a continuing reduction of population. We, as a government, have to turn that around. In the past, the attraction of an extra five weeks pay a year encouraged employees to work in remote areas, and they and their families contributed to the collective wealth of the town. Now there is no real incentive. Labor's rotten FBT was the last straw; and unless we adopt policies to encourage people back, when comfortable city-centric Australians take their infrequent doses of real Australia there will be no-one left to pour the beer or the petrol.In many respects, northern and remote areas of Australia are still developing and need to be classified as such. If special measures for funding allocation are not implemented, we will finish up with overflowing coastal cities and with increasing family breakdown as the remote area work force spend more time separated from their families, flying into and out of remote employment. A meaningful taxation zone rebate, paid only to taxpayers who are bona fide residents, would encourage population back, restore the viability of local businesses, reverse school closures and restore communities. The rebate system as it currently stands is not addressing the problem as it did when it was introduced. The towns that were populated on the basis of tax incentives have been let down by subsequent governments taking for granted the continued dedication of a remote population. Until such time as basic services of education, health, security and transportation are provided for all Australians, regardless of where they live, then special concessions regarding taxation must be made. Only then can we justifiably espouse `one vote, one value'.The remaining population are becoming increasingly aware of the enormous financial contribution made to the nation by northern and remote Australia and are justifiably indignant about the lack of infrastructure. Their perception is that services are given to areas of greatest population regardless of need. Why shouldn't taxpayers expect equal service on the basis that they pay equal tax? The throw-away line that `if they don't like the bush, they should move to the city' is not good enough. What we need in rural Australia is population, and the only way to get that is with incentives and services. The message from the northern forum needs to be heard as a wake-up call for my city based southern colleagues. They often air a point of view that northern and remote Australia is the backside of Australia. Need I remind them of what may happen if the backside seizes up!Regardless of my prima facie arguments when it comes to zone rebates, I do recognise that any solution to this problem will need to be thoroughly researched and analysed before it can be implemented without destroying the budget and consequently affecting the government's delivery of essential services to rural residents in other areas.On 31 May in this place, I said that careful and meaningful consideration had to be given to the rebate scheme if the problem of the high cost of living in regional areas was to be addressed in a manner satisfactory to rural and remote residents. In the five months since then, despite the very successful introduction of the GST, I have seen nothing to change my opinion. I urge my colleagues on the front bench to consider this over the coming months as a matter of great urgency. 2163318:20:0021633Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise to draw the attention of the House to the negative aspects of the GST, and I grieve for those affected. I am sure all MPs are being confronted with examples of these negative aspects, and I would hope that government MPs would also show a little bit of compassion and draw to the attention of this parliament examples of where the GST is hurting constituents in their electorates. I would like to air the grievances of a few constituents from my electorate. I believe that they represent a pretty good cross-section of our community. I refer firstly to an 82-year-old grandmother, who wrote to me in August:I am so disgusted and annoyed over the GST and what it is doing to us old age pensioners. All the great promises our Prime Minister made re what we were going to get ...Further on in her letter she wrote:Our phone bill over $6 more on our account because of the GST. But what I am so annoyed about I do a lot of knitting for kiddies wards 4 boxes for Baulkham Hills, Westmead and Blacktown [Hospitals] and got an order for 6 bed socks for an old age pensioner so had to go into Big W to get extra wool and I could not believe I got charged $4.04 on wool for the GST.This is the sort of volunteer, charitable work that is being punished by this government. While there are GST exemptions for registered charities, a large amount of charitable work is done by volunteers off their own bat and at their own expense. They are now being slugged with this unfair and despicable tax for simply trying to help.The next constituent I refer to is a 58-year-old self-funded retiree who holds down a part-time position of 15 hours per week. His 57-year-old wife was until recently working part time but is now retired. This constituent wrote, in part:Not wishing to be cynical, we recently benefited greatly from the $5 each week in tax cuts. We chose self-support as there is no desire to become a burden on the social security system.It came as a terrible shock to us to find that the funds invested through our cash-back annuity which amounted to our entire life savings have been effectively devalued by at least 2.3 per cent along with small but additional fund management fees.It was a promise of the Prime Minister Mr John Howard that “no one would be worse off under the GST.” To my knowledge, members of the community have in some way been or will be compensated as a result of the tax changes.We had expected to be included in the group of self-funded retirees who are to receive a one-off amount of compensation—this package does not appear to extend to those who have earned a small income of $1,000 and above in the past financial year.Self-funded retirees are finding it harder to make ends meet as a result of this government's decision not to compensate them adequately. We saw the one-off savings bonus just evaporate before our eyes. It obviously was not a `core' promise. When the Prime Minister says one thing repeatedly, only to then welsh on the deal, it is no wonder that our government and our profession are held in such low esteem by the general public.I refer next to a constituent who was injured in a car accident. He received a court settlement of $90,000, with the economic loss component estimated at $45,000. The income test rate was set at $422.90 per week with the social security preclusion period to apply for 106 weeks, from 27 October 1999 to 6 November 2001. This period spans the introduction of the GST. I understand that the post-GST income test rate would be $543.63, which would, if applied to my constituent's case, reduce the preclusion period by some 16 or 17 weeks. All the advice that this constituent has received from Centrelink is to come back and see them if things are getting tight towards the end of the preclusion period.This government is quick to jump all over anyone who claims even one dollar more than their entitlement, to the point of bringing criminal prosecutions for fraud against pensioners, even in some cases against the advice of Centrelink staff. Are they willing to go the other way and re-examine the issue of the preclusion period? No, they are not. And why? Because it might actually mean that someone is entitled to a payment a few weeks sooner than the government would like. This government has short arms and very deep pockets and would not shout in a shark attack when it comes to giving the battlers a fair deal. My next example is expressed by a constituent who is an optometrist, and he has expressed his concern is to me this way:As one of your constituents I thought you might be interested in a copy of the fax I have sent to the Commissioner of Taxation. The implementation of this new tax system has left a lot to be desired. I don't blame the workers in the Tax Department for this. They have had to battle with an unruly monster of a tax that seemed to be revised daily leading to its implementation. However, it is very difficult to plan when not only did I not receive my business activities statement but I still don't know how much tax I have to pay under the PAYG instalments. It is now seven weeks into the new tax year. This situation is causing me stress as well as making budgeting impossible. If there is anything you could do, I would appreciate it.There is an appalling lack of information and help available for people trying to come to grips with the new tax system. I acknowledge that the government has done some work in this area and more advisers have been employed by the Taxation Office, but the delays are still too long and there is still far too much confusion over the implementation of this system.This leads me to another constituent who contacted me last week. He is a tradesman and small business owner who is having trouble with his business activities statement. He contacted the tax office to seek assistance and was told that someone would contact him in about 10 days time to arrange an appointment where they would come to him and go through it with him. Ten days later, a tax officer did contact him. The only trouble was that the officer was in Newcastle and did not want to come all the way to Blacktown in Western Sydney to help out. That is when the constituent rang me in utter frustration, expecting another 10 days delay while someone else from the tax office might contact him. He was a bit worried that they might be from Adelaide or Perth.I have also received a note from a tax accountant in my electorate who raises another GST problem for small businesspeople. He advises me that the federal government has claimed that more than two million businesses have applied for the ABN-GST but that a number of small businesses have lodged application forms without consulting an accountant and they now want to deregister from the GST. These small businesses have less than $50,000 turnover and GST registration is not compulsory, and they registered without understanding the consequences. If these small businesspeople register for the GST, they have to lodge returns quarterly. If they are registered for the ABN only, they do not have to lodge quarterly returns. The cost of seeing an accountant every three months might not be economical for them. This accountant suggested that the government should have an education program to advise small businesspeople how to get out of the GST if it is not appropriate for them. I see that the government introduced legislation during the last sitting week about this issue. This piece of catch-up legislation will still penalise the small businesses affected until at least the end of the year.On a final note, there appears to be a problem in some shops where the price on the shelf is not the GST inclusive price. My own son-in-law purchased a suit which was one price on the shelf and then they added the GST at the checkout. Last time I looked, that was illegal. It is certainly something that people need to be made aware of.That appears to be a fairly good cross-section of the Australian community: an 82-year-old grandmother, a self-funded retiree, a constituent injured in a car accident, an optometrist, a tradesperson and a tax accountant. I also include my own relative. That is not to mention the anecdotal evidence of small businesspeople who have been advised by their tax agent to get out of their business because it is too expensive for them to operate under the GST. I am sure that the examples that I have given are also being given to government members, but I doubt whether we will hear from them in the parliament because to do so would prove what the Labor Party has been saying all along, that the GST is an unfair tax. Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.2163520:00:0021635Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—On 3 August this year, at the conclusion of the Australian Labor Party national conference in Hobart, the Leader of the Opposition announced its new policy for health care. Describing it as `Medicare after dark', the Leader of the Opposition outlined what the Labor Party would adopt as policy in that there would be a facility established to provide emergency access to general practitioners and nursing staff after hours. We were told that it would fund new after hours services by GPs to reduce long waiting times in emergency departments and that telephone services would be staffed by nurses under the supervision of doctors to provide 24-hour phone advice on medical problems and treatment options. In the Australian on 4 August, the Leader of the Opposition was quoted as saying:When fully developed, the after hours network could handle between two million and three million of the five million cases that emergency departments now deal with each year. He went on to say:This initiative would take pressure off emergency departments allowing them to concentrate on major cases such as car or work accidents. He further argued:This initiative would enable GPs to handle less serious medical cases such as asthma attack or a patient needing a tetanus injection.Firstly, if a person presents needing a tetanus injection and nothing else, the nursing staff provide that injection. The second thing is that the Leader of the Opposition clearly does not suffer from asthma. Anyone who does will tell you how frightening it can be and also how difficult it can be, especially for patients, to know just how severe the episode really is. The families of the 684 people who died from asthma in 1998 would certainly attest to that.The Labor plan is also to fund and establish GP clinics in or around hospital emergency departments. What this really represents is a shift in costs from state governments to the Commonwealth. If the stated intention of reducing waiting times to less than an hour were achieved, demand would certainly increase with people more likely, not less likely, to present with relatively trivial complaints. If we want people treated in the community, why would you establish a system that would actually discourage that?I have been able to examine some research that has been done on the use of emergency departments by Australians, in particular those using what Mr Beazley has described as less serious complaints for which they apparently should be seeing GPs. There are a number of things to understand. Firstly, the Australasian College of Emergency Medicine has developed what is described as a national triage system which goes from category 1 to category 5. Category 1 is the most serious, life threatening condition, category 5 is described as non-urgent and category 4 as semi-urgent. There are a number of facts that the House needs to understand. In 1999, the so-called Beech study was conducted where 100,000 patients were followed through 1,000 general practitioner consultations. It found that fewer than one patient in 1,000 is sick enough to require immediate referral to an emergency department. Fewer than one patient in 100 in general practice needs admission to hospital on the day of presentation. There is no crossover between the top 10 complaints in general practice and the top 10 complaints seen in emergency departments. GPs also have very low exposure to minor and certainly moderate trauma and associated procedures and GPs also have low exposure to common emergency department presentations such as abdominal pain and all acute cardiovascular conditions, including acute nephology.The national triage scale has been scientifically evaluated and validated for application in emergency departments. In fact, it has been approved by the Australian Council on Health Care Standards. In the national triage scale, categories 4 and 5, which are the two categories to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred, although described as semi-urgent and non-urgent, have acuities of less than one hour and two hours respectively. That means that if a GP was to see only those two categories they would see three patients every two hours. The casemix of the national triage scale 4 and 5 is quite different from urban general practice. For example, the emergency admission rates for category 4 are 20 per cent. The emergency admission rates for category 5, which the Labor Party considers to be non-urgent, are between five and 10 per cent. I remind the House that in general practice less than one per cent of patients presenting to a GP actually need to be admitted to hospital. The other thing that ought to be pointed out is that doctors in emergency departments take an average of 40 minutes to see a category 4 patient and 25 minutes to see a category 5 patient. The average consultation in general practice is between five and 10 minutes. The other point that is not understood by the Labor Party is that NTS category 4 and category 5 patients have significant mortality rates. For example, a major study at St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney in 1997 by Dent reported 112 deaths among the 33 per cent of category 4 patients admitted to that hospital after emergency department presentation in 1997. A large proportion of category 4 and category 5 patients are actually referred to the hospitals directly by doctors. The Labor Party Medicare after dark proposal—or Medicare in the dark—is that GPs would be at the hospital seeing patients referred to the hospital by GPs who feel that they need to be seen by someone who perhaps has more experience with their condition than they might have.Going also to the heart of this, the Leader of the Opposition says that the Labor Party needs to develop this policy to reduce waiting times in emergency departments to less than one hour. In fact, in 1998 there were 185 hospitals waiting times surveyed for 2½ million emergency department attendances under the Australian Council on Health Care Standards care evaluation program and 67.7 per cent of category 4 patients were seen within one hour and 87 per cent of the half a million patients in category 5 were seen within two hours.The next issue is that of cost. The cost of treating category 4 and category 5 patients in an emergency department is quite reasonable. In fact, the National Health Strategy paper No. 10, produced under the auspices of the member for Jagajaga when she was working with then Minister Brian Howe, said:The marginal cost of treating a primary care encounter in the emergency department setting is considerably lower than the cost of providing the same care in a general practice setting.In fact, it has been confirmed in a number of clinical costing studies undertaken by the Commonwealth and the states that the marginal cost of category 5 attendance in urban hospitals is between $17.90 and $35 if you exclude radiology, pathology or pharmacy. The other point that should be made is that, because of the relatively small numbers that are involved in this, fee-for-service payment makes any 24-hour general practice service a financially challenging proposition to say the least. Another issue here is that in some metropolitan areas the largest numbers of category 4 and category 5 patients have actually been found to come from postcodes that have the highest density of GPs. Emergency departments with extended hours or 24-hour general practices in close proximity to them have similar proportions of category 4 and category 5 patients to those that do not.In conclusion, it is arguable at best as to whether any new service model is required or indeed whether it would even be viable to provide for the acute care needs of metropolitan and major provincial centres. The fact is that the majority of cases presenting to emergency departments in Australian hospitals have almost no relationship to the sorts of cases that are presenting in general practice. The cost of treating a patient in a general practice setting is substantially higher than that of treating one in an emergency department setting. The third point is that waiting times are already more than satisfactory for the sorts of patients which the Labor Party believes would be treated under this sort of plan. The final point that ought to be made is that, at a time when we are doing everything we can to see that more people are treated in a community setting, the Labor plan for Medicare, if you like, is to do just the opposite—to take people into an institutional setting, to have them treated there and to have them treated by doctors for whom those clinical experiences are a minority event. This would create a demand for the very services with which we are told there is a problem that has to be addressed—a problem which, I can assure you, most significantly does not exist. I refer honourable members to the Australasian College of Emergency Medicine for a scientific dissertation on the facts. 2163720:10:0021637Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Today I want to draw the House's attention to an instance which I hope and trust is unusual, whereby some 15 elderly Tasmanians, constituents of mine, have been treated at best with little regard for their self-worth and at worst in a way that I suppose you could say is body farming. This matter started in around August of this year when the Hobart City Council received notice that their then coordinator of HACC programs, or community aged care packages, was going to leave. They decided that they wanted to get rid of their responsibilities in that regard. Previously the Hobart City Council had engaged Independent Health Care Service to provide care packages to these 15 elderly Hobart residents. But with the loss of their coordinator, Diana Wormersly, who was going to a position at St Ann's Rest Home Inc., instead of discussing this matter with Independent Health Care Service and discussing it with the elderly people themselves, a decision was taken to transfer those aged care places in three lots of five packages: five packages to St Ann's Rest Home, five packages to Southern Cross Homes and five packages to the Salvation Army.At some stage—and we are not quite sure when—the Department of Health and Aged Care approved these transfers. This all happened quietly, without any notice being given to Independent Health Care Service or indeed to the elderly folk until they received a notice about two weeks before the transfer was to be effected, when they were told that the packages were being transferred. At this time Independent Health Care Service sought to place themselves in a position where they could be registered as a health care provider. But, because they were not then so registered, a view was taken that they were not eligible and virtually nothing was done to enable them to speed through those processes, which would have enabled them to take up any of the packages themselves. No-one suggests they had provided inadequate care. They are a very highly regarded provider of services. They are still providing services in other areas and for other registered providers.So what happened? We got this situation where there was no consultation. The coordinator from the Hobart City Council left and moved to St Ann's. No-one can really get to the bottom of this and tell us exactly who made which decisions and determinations, but at the very least it looks as if a decision was made which in a sense followed an economic interest in respect of those placements from Hobart City Council, with one-third of those places going to St Ann's where the coordinator was now to be placed. Yet there were no discussions with the previous provider or with the elderly folk.Three or four days before this transfer was to come into effect, on the Thursday of the previous week, a decision was made by Caroline Thurlow under the Complaints Resolution Scheme that the transfer should be put on hold. That was because apparently of the 15 elderly people only three were happy to be transferred. So on the Thursday before the transfer was to go into effect the Commonwealth's officials decided under the Complaints Resolution Scheme that, because only three of these elderly people were happy to be transferred, the transfer should be put on hold, care should be continued by the carers that they had been previously attended by, who were employed by the Independent Health Care Service, and an effort should be made to find an appropriate resolution of this matter.The next day, a meeting was held that was attended by a more senior officer of the department, Peter Limb, a representative from the Hobart City Council, from St Ann's and from Southern Cross Homes, but there was no representative for the elderly people or from Independent Health Care. That meeting impressed upon the department that the decision should be reviewed—and it was. Mr Limb was told that the resistance was being generated by advocacy from Independent Health Care Services, not by the patients themselves. So the department, without any processes that you would say would be appropriate to natural justice, dealt with this matter by overturning its previous decision during a secret meeting that no-one was advised about and then, over the weekend, had to go and tell these people, who believed they had been reprieved, that in fact they were going to have new carers on the next week. This is a shocking state of affairs for anybody to be put in. My office was naturally contacted as a result by some of the people who were involved, particularly by a woman called Pam Barker, who has power of attorney for her mother, who is one of these patients. What we have found impossible to understand is that this situation has not been able to be resolved. Normally, as a federal member, when a situation like this arises you do get good cooperation. I have the greatest respect for agencies such as St Ann's and the Hobart City Council, and indeed for the department, normally. But here there seems to have been a series of tragic errors: firstly, the decision to get rid of their services by the Hobart City Council, a down and dirty decision, without even discussing it with the previous provider, to farm these people out to three other service organisations. This was followed by a quick approval without any reflection by the department. Then an appeal process put these things on hold, but it was later reviewed without any processes appropriate to natural justice and there was an unwillingness, after all of this, to find a solution. For example, Mrs Barker told me that her mother has refused care from these new providers. She wants care to continue from the people who had been providing that care previously.People are refusing to look at practical solutions—for example, five of the packages were refused in the end by the Salvation Army. Having those refused, it would have been quite possible to look at allocating those places to the Glenorchy Council, which still provides a scheme, and have Independent Health Care Services provide those packages `out of area'. But what has made it worse is that those five places were divided up again between St Ann's and Southern Cross Homes. No-one seems willing to find a commonsense outcome, to actually take into account the concerns and anxiety of the people who did not want these changes to occur and who were not allowed to be involved in the consultation. No commonsense solutions have been arrived at.I have written to the minister. I do not normally take the opportunity to put matters like this in public because, in a sense, it is washing the dirty linen of otherwise highly regarded organisations in my electorate. But this has to be fixed. We cannot allow elderly people to be treated as chattels, to be bargained over because they are worth a price in relation to service provision. It is just not acceptable. It has that smell to me. I put it no stronger than that. My suspicions have been deeply aroused by the way this has been dealt with. I hope it is no more than a comedy of errors. But I am deeply troubled by this, and I want to stimulate some reaction from those who have the charge and responsibility for ensuring that our elderly people who are provided with services at community expense are treated properly. After all, there are provisions in their contracts that entitle them to be consulted. They were not consulted. Their interests were never taken into account, other than as people who need to have physical care. You can provide physical care, but if you have contempt for people's social needs, for the fact that they have established expectations and that they want to have continuity of care from people whom they have known for some four years—and Independent Health Care Services had been providing these caring arrangements for four years before they were terminated—if you do not take those psychological factors into account, you really are treating people in a way that is unacceptable, given the respect that we ought to engage in when we deal with those who are elderly and in need of care. I do hope that putting this matter forward during the grievance debate will give us an opportunity to see these matters remedied. (Time expired)2163920:20:0021639Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I rise tonight to express my disappointment at the Commonwealth Bank's recent decision to close its Boyne Island branch. The decision has understandably been met with widespread anger in the local community, with a number of businesspeople and residents contacting my office to register their protest. Last week I visited the area, did a street walk, visited shops and talked to locals about the Commonwealth Bank's decision. The depth of feeling was palpable. Boyne Island and Tannum Sands are twin communities located on the central Queensland coast just south of Gladstone. About 8,000 people live in the two communities. Boyne Island is home to Australia's and the Southern Hemisphere's largest aluminium smelter. Boyne Smelters employs 1,200 people, producing 490,000 tonnes of metal per year. It is Queensland's largest user of electricity. The twin towns have a mix of residential, business, shopping and industry areas, while Tannum Sands is popular with residents and tourists alike for its charming township and pristine beaches. The towns are part of the Calliope shire, which has grown by almost 10 per cent in the three years—that is, the period 1997 to 1999 inclusive. Recent building approvals suggest that something in the order of 65 per cent of the Calliope shire's growth has been in the Boyne-Tannum area. The area's high school, which opened in 1998 with 300 students, will move to full level 12 status next year with an enrolment of 800. From 300 students to 800 students is simply extraordinary growth.It seems bizarre that the Commonwealth Bank should choose to close a branch in an area that was going ahead in leaps and bounds. The information I have received from the bank is that `the decision to close the branch was taken only after a thorough investigation of many factors, including both current and future business trends, customer usage and the alternative services'. The bank will maintain a presence in Gladstone with two sites, but Boyne Island is about 25 kilometres, or a 30-minute drive, from Gladstone, and this poses a safety issue for people travelling with large amounts of cash.The Commonwealth Bank has said that it will continue to offer face-to-face banking at Boyne Island's postal agency. However, an anonymous letter-writer to the local newspaper, the GladstoneObserver, recently described this as `a big joke'. The letter writer expressed doubt that the post office would be able to cater for bank clientele and said that `the space from the doors to the counter holds four customers in two lines.' Another letter writer, John Groth, was a little more generous in his assessment but expressed similar sentiments. He wrote that the staff at the post office are `doing a magnificent job, but customers are up to the doors when there are more than six clients at any one time, so how are they going to handle the extra clients?' Mr Groth also made the point that the Boyne Island branch staff had received a certificate of achievement for increased business for the July-August period. Only five of these certificates were awarded Australia-wide; in other words, it was one of the five growth areas in Australia. Why would you close a branch in an area of existing and potential growth and where you have just rewarded your staff for increased business? Further, there is something like $5.5 billion in investment activity in the pipeline for the Gladstone region in the near future—most notably Comalco's plans for a second alumina refinery. A high proportion of new residents will undoubtedly settle in the Boyne Island-Tannum Sands area. Bank closures have been occurring for more than a decade, and we accept that new technology may have had some impact. Facilities such as EFTPOS, ATMs, telephone and Internet banking, and giroPost facilities at post offices may suit some customers. The use of electronic banking has increased markedly over the past five years, with more than 50 per cent of all customer transactions now conducted outside a branch. There is no doubt that there is a lot of convenience with telephone and Internet banking, but these services are not suitable for everyone. More to the point, an agency cannot provide the major aspects of retail banking, especially the depositing of daily takings. Quite apart from all this, many people, especially people of the older generation, feel uncomfortable using some forms of new banking technologies. Some do not like using ATMs and EFTPOS, let alone telephone or Internet banking. As pointed out by another anonymous Gladstone Observer letter writer, the use of new technology results in a catch-22 situation. The writer noted: `They (the banks) charge more money to use the over-the-counter services than at the flexi-teller, so people use the flexi-teller instead of the bank tellers.' This gives the bank's hierarchy the justification they are looking for to close the bank—they can say that fewer people are using it.The financial services monitoring agency, Cannex, found that transaction charges over the past two years have increased considerably, most notably in over-the-counter transactions. The average rise for over-the-counter withdrawals was 20 per cent. The level of community anger at banks has intensified in recent years, to the point where a community organisation has been formed as a self-styled community watchdog. Bankwatch is a non-profit community organisation which aims to provide ordinary Australians with a voice in the delivery of banking services and to inform and educate consumers about how they can obtain better service. I understand the group has produced a range of fact sheets on issues such as reducing fees, understanding deeming rules, and choosing the account that suits a particular customer's needs.Along with bank closures, the issue of ever-increasing fees has raised the ire of bank customers as never before. Earlier this month, a Reserve Bank and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission report highlighted that interchange fees—the fees paid when customers use cards at ATMs and retailers with a rival bank—are almost double the cost to the banks. This month we have also seen the announcement that National Australia Bank will close 100 of its 1,000 branches while at the same time introducing fees for previously free services, such as telephone and Internet banking.I welcome the fact that the Parliamentary Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities is conducting an inquiry into fees on electronic and telephone banking. I understand the committee may consider recommending up-front disclosure of fees midway through transactions. I note that banks were quick to say that this would mean more costs to them, as they would have to set up new systems and the technology is not quite ready. I think that, if it is viable, real-time disclosure of fees would be worth while. It would help customers judge just how much they are paying in fees. Also, if customers know when they reach the limit of free transactions, they can take steps that will save them money.In summary, I would like to urge the Commonwealth Bank to rethink its Boyne-Tannum decision. This persistence by the banks to put profits before people has gone too far. All people who are active in providing services to the community need to think not just about their bottom line but also about how reasonably and responsibly they act as corporate citizens in the community. If there is no change, if the cavalier attitude of banks continues, and if the lust for profit without service continues, then I believe that the time is at hand when the federal government must reassume a measure of regulation over banks, consider new forms of banking licences, and even go to the extent of imposing legislative community service obligations on banks in respect of locations, charges and services.10000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—The questions is that grievences be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills21640R108821640Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at a later hour this day.Bills21641R113621641Debate resumed from 12 October, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.20:30:0021641Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—in reply—As I have said previously in speaking on the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000, I am proud of the government's recent achievements in reforming the Child Support Scheme. I want to build on these achievements. The measures contained in this bill should not be looked at in isolation. Last year we introduced a range of administrative and legislative reforms to the Child Support Scheme—reforms that were over half a decade in the making. We implemented measures to ensure that parents are treated equitably under the child support formula. Some may argue that the reforms do not go far enough. To a degree there was some unfinished business, and that is why I am here today.Parents should be responsible for providing for their children. Bringing children into the world is one of the most serious decisions parents take. Bringing a life into the world should not be taken lightly. Parents should not be able to shirk their responsibilities. If a parent has the financial resources to provide for their children, then they should not be allowed to avoid that responsibility. They should not expect the rest of the community to pick up the tab and they should not expect the community or the government to turn a blind eye. Children depend on their parents for many things. They depend on their parents for guidance. They depend on their parents for nurturing and emotional support. They depend on their parents for stability and financial stability. Most of all, they depend on both of their parents for these things. We all want what is best for our children. We all want to ensure that our children have the best opportunities to develop, to succeed and to excel in whatever vocation they may take up. Over the last two weeks I have had some time to reflect on the speeches made by members on both sides of this House. I would have to say that members on both sides of this place share the same sentiments that I have expressed. In particular, I commend the member for Macquarie for his comments. To quote him, it is true that the amendments allow nonresident parents `a fairer go, while still protecting the needs of the children'. I compliment the Deputy Speaker, the member for Gilmore, for her words on the bill. The member for Gilmore takes a strong interest in child support matters and is a strong advocate for responsible and balanced reform of the Child Support Scheme. The member for Gilmore has had a close association with the issue of child support over the last four years. This started with her work with me on the Prime Minister's special task force on child support. Similarly, I thank the members for Makin and Petrie for their contributions to the debate and their support of the bill. In fact, I thank all members for their support of the bill. It was good to see that the member for Lilley did not use this debate to try to score cheap political points, and I commend him for that. I can understand some of the scepticism shown by some members to aspects of the bill. But, as I said earlier, the bill needs to be considered as a package that builds on the government's recent reforms—reforms to taxation and the social security system, reforms where families have clearly been shown to be the major winners. There needs to be careful consideration of recent Australian research into the costs of children and the contact behaviour of nonresident parents. In putting this package together the government took into account opinions and concerns expressed by both resident and nonresident parents over a long period of time. We considered all of the recent Australian research into the costs of children and the contact behaviour of parents. The measures were not put together on a whim. I acknowledge that the member for Lilley has raised some concerns about the contact measures and the measures relating to the reduction of the cap. I note that he has proposed some alternatives. On the face of it, the alternatives put forward by the opposition appear to be flawed and unnecessarily complex. However, as I have said, I am willing to examine the member for Lilley's proposals more closely. Child support is a very emotional issue. It is often portrayed as a gender war. These measures propose to ease the tension between parents, not to escalate it. No government can ever legislate to prevent marriage or relationship breakdown, but governments can and should intervene to try to promote positive outcomes for children. Positive outcomes for children and for parents are strongest where parents maintain a positive, ongoing relationship following separation and where the nonresident parent continues to play an effective parenting role. Australian and overseas research supports the measures contained in this bill. Studies into the children of separated parents overall indicate that contact with nonresident parents is of benefit to the development of children. Furthermore, research shows that the amount and quality of contact between fathers and children are significant predictors of the child's wellbeing and life chances following parent separation. I call on members on both sides of the House to support all the changes in this bill in the interests of a more equitable child support scheme. The changes are fair. They are fair because a parent who has ongoing and regular contact with their children will not pay the same amount of child support as someone who has no contact. The changes are fair because the amount of child support that a parent pays will not be more than the total cost of their children. They are fair because, if a parent takes on overtime or a second job for the sole purpose of improving the circumstances of the children living with them, these children will benefit from the additional income. The changes are fair because eligibility for family tax benefit and child-care benefit will be assessed on the actual income available to the family. The changes are fair for nonresident parents and resident parents and, most of all, they are fair for the children of the separated parents. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.21642Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.20:38:0021642Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I move government amendment No. 1:(1) Schedule 6, item 1, page 42 (line 13), after “direct”, insert “or indirect”.The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills identified a drafting error in the provisions of the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. This amendment rectifies this omission. Schedule 6 to the bill inserts into the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 provisions for a departure prohibition order scheme for certain child support debtors. Under proposed section 72U of the bill, a person about to depart from Australia may be required to produce documents for specific purposes. Section 72V provides that a person is not excused from such a requirement on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination, but section 72V also currently provides that any information or document obtained as a direct result of complying with such a requirement is not generally admissible in evidence. Current Commonwealth criminal law policy means that the latter provisions should in fact refer to any information or document obtained as a direct or indirect result of complying with a requirement. The two words were omitted from the original bill only because of an unintended drafting error. My amendment is to insert the words `or indirect' into section 72V to bring the provision into line with the current policy and comparable provisions. I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill20:39:0021642Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Tempted as I am to make a substantial speech on the issue of child support, I am mindful of the maxim that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, and so I will pass by on the other side. I simply indicate that the opposition will not be opposing the amendment.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.21643Bill (on motion by Mr Anthony)—by leave—read a third time.Bills21643R108821643Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 4), before item 1, insert:1A Subsections 9(1A) and (1B)Repeal the subsections, substitute:Exception—political discourse(1A) To remove any doubt, it is declared that if: (a) something (the advertisement) does not promote, and is not intended to promote: (i) any particular tobacco product; or (ii) a particular range of tobacco products; or (iii) a manufacturer of tobacco products; or (iv) a tobacco trademark; and (b) the advertisement does not promote, and is not intended to promote, smoking; and (c) the advertisement relates solely to government or political matters; the advertisement is not a tobacco advertisement for the purposes of this Act.Political comment by a manufacturer etc.(1B) Without limiting the scope of subsection (1A), the use by a manufacturer or a group of manufacturers of its own name or their own names in an advertisement or publication is not a tobacco advertisement for the purposes of this Act where:(a) the advertisement or publication is for the purpose of the manufacturer participating in government or political matters; and (b) the advertisement does not promote, and is not intended to promote, smoking.(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 23), at the end of the Schedule, add:3 After section 34Insert:34A Reports to Parliament(1) As soon as practicable after each 31 December occurring after 1 January 2001, the Minister must cause to be prepared a report on: (a) the number and nature of any contraventions of the Act occurring in the preceding 12 months; and (b) action taken by the Minister or a Commonwealth agency in response to each contravention.(2) A person who prepares a report under subsection (1) must give a copy to the Minister.(3) The Minister must cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after receiving it.20:42:0021643Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The Senate has returned this bill with two amendments. The government is prepared to accept the first amendment. We are not prepared to accept the second amendment, and we are prepared to have this legislation go down as a result of it. When the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000 went to the Senate, it was simply designed to repeal section 18(2), thus removing the remaining provisions that allow tobacco advertising at sporting events in Australia. While there are now only a few events that receive this exemption, which is available through this section, we have proposed to remove this option altogether. The first of the amendments that have come from the Senate consists of changes to subsections 9(1A) and 9(1B) of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992. In principle, the government accepts the change to section 9(1A); it assists to clarify the scope of the exception relating to political discourse under legislation. I remind the House that section 9(1) was added to the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act in 1995 to make the act constitutionally valid. PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—You got it wrong! You are going to agree to it.10000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Order! The minister has the call.8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—Madam Deputy Speaker, there are two amendments here. I was accepting the two parts of the Labor amendments as one and two. I would like to indicate to the House that the government proposes that amendment No. 2 be agreed to, and that amendment No. 1 be disagreed to. I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the House first to consider amendment No. 2, and when that amendment has been disposed of to consider amendment No. 1. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is that the wish of the House?PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—I move:That amendment (2) be agreed to.I will come to the opposition in a minute—to the gross hypocrisy on the other side. There is plenty of time to wait for that. We have no difficulty, as a government, with amendment No. 2. The reports to parliament are sensible and we are happy to agree to the amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative. 20:45:0021644Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I move:That amendment (1) be disagreed to.This piece of legislation is something that has not been exceeded by any other western country. The Labor Party's action tonight means that this legislation is going to be voted down. The Labor Party can take responsibility for defeating the gold standard for tobacco prohibition anywhere in the western world. This is the worst sort of political hypocrisy and the worst sort of metooism one could ever expect to see in politics. The Labor Party's record on tobacco control was pathetic. The Labor Party accepted more money from tobacco firms than any other political party in this country. The Labor Party refused to change tobacco from a per weight basis to a per stick basis. They refused to phase out all tobacco advertising. They sat on a tobacco control program that went nowhere, that meant Australia was static at around 24 per cent of the Australian adult population who were smoking.The government has changed all these things. The government is prepared to move this substantial step, but it is not prepared to have a political party that, in government, did not have the guts to address the major public health issues and kowtowed in a cowardly way to the tobacco industry, tag along and pretend it is doing something when in opposition. The fact is that these pathetic metoo amendments are, on our legal advice, unconstitutional. I am not going to let this legislation go through with something that is subject to legal challenge. I am not going to give the tobacco industry an opportunity to defeat this in the High Court. I am prepared to let the whole legislation go down. I will say here in the House that it will not be reintroduced while I am minister for health. This will be a tragedy to public health in Australia. The Labor Party can take the responsibility for this as it tries to catch up after its own pathetic record of 13 years in government.We do not accept, cannot accept and will not accept the proposed changes to subsection 9(1B). The amendment as passed by the Senate refers to the use by a manufacturer or a group of manufacturers of its own name or their own names in an advertisement or publication. This is unclear and confusing. In particular, we have to assume the reference is intended to mean the manufacturer's tobacco products but, on its face, the provision goes much wider. Even more significantly, with this amendment the opposition has created a situation whereby the constitutional validity of the act can be challenged. Legal advice received from the Australian Government Solicitor indicates the law could effectively burden the freedom of communication about government or political matters. Further, the Australian Government Solicitor's advice is that, as legitimate political discourse is prevented by the amendment as passed by the Senate, the High Court might find this unconstitutional.The Labor Party have not tabled their advice. They have not tabled from whom their advice comes. The Labor Party are welcome to move this amendment if they ever get back into government. But if they insist on this, the legislation will go down, and everyone interested in tobacco control in Australia will know it is the result of the unbridled political opportunism of a party trying to catch up because of its pathetic record in government.20:49:0021644Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—It is unfortunate that the Minister for Health and Aged Care has decided to spit the dummy on this issue, but I guess we should be used to that. I wonder whether the minister has noticed that the title of the act that we are amending is the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992. I wonder who must have been in government in 1992 to move those changes to the legislation. Of course it was the Labor Party—not the coalition, as he would have everybody believe from his petulant little outburst here tonight. The minister would also know that the Herron report was received in 1995, recommending the changes that we are now debating in October 2000, recommending that there be a phase-out of tobacco advertising for these sporting events. It has taken this government all the time it has been in office to get to this stage. We should also be aware that this bill was finally introduced in May this year and it is now the end of October. The minister came into the chamber in an absolute state saying that if it is not dealt with tonight he will reject the bill and it will be the end of civilisation as we know it. If the minister wanted to show that he is concerned to close this loophole, it would have been far more productive to give us all the advice that he has received. We indicated that we would be able to provide our advice to him. We asked that the bill be delayed for further debate until tomorrow. He refused and insisted that the debate be brought on urgently tonight. Goodness knows what the final urgency is, given that it took him four years to get the bill into the parliament and since May to get it to this stage. I do not know what the final urgency is. If the minister were serious about dealing with this loophole, if he really wanted to get rid of political sponsorship by tobacco companies, he would be willing to sit down with the opposition and sort out what he says are constitutional difficulties.Regarding our first amendment, last Wednesday we were provided with the government's last piece of legal advice from the Crown Solicitor. In our amendment we were attempting to close this loophole on sponsorship of political events by tobacco companies. That advice was provided and we changed our amendment to try and deal with the legal problems that the Crown Solicitor put forward. We put the amendments to the Senate today. We now find that the government has further legal advice saying that we cannot proceed with this amendment because there may be a High Court challenge. There are two issues. If the government were serious, I would say to the minister, `Provide us with the latest piece of advice. Let's sit down and try and work out an amendment that actually does get rid of political sponsorships by tobacco companies.' That is the first thing. The second is that I would draw the minister's attention to the severability clause in the act, which means that if there were ever a challenge only this section would be invalid; it would not invalidate the whole act.Another point I would like to make in relation to the whole legal question is that any challenge would be subject to the test of reasonableness, and we have gone to some effort to make sure that tobacco companies continue to have the right to free speech in their own name. We are not interested in seeing the Liberal Party continue to receive sponsorships for Liberal Party dinners, as this minister knows oh so much about. We are not interested in seeing that continue. We would have thought that, if this minister was serious about getting rid of tobacco company sponsorships of Liberal Party dinners, he would agree to this amendment. If there is still a legal problem, why doesn't he provide us with the latest legal advice? Why doesn't he sit down and work with the opposition to get rid of this problem that is a loophole in the legislation that is still allowing political sponsorship of these events by tobacco companies? We see that this minister wants to continue this loophole. If anyone is not serious about tobacco, it is certainly him. (Time expired)20:54:0021645Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I am happy to put this government's record on tobacco control against anything the Labor Party has ever done. The reason I am not prepared to sit down is that I am not prepared to be part of a political stunt. The Labor Party has put out a pathetic press release tonight talking in self-congratulatory terms, welcoming the passage of Labor amendments that, quite frankly, do absolutely nothing other than threaten the legislation. The press release says: In future tobacco company advertisements will only be permitted in their own name ... It also says:The closure of the loophole allowing political sponsorships will bring to an end the era of tobacco sponsorship in Australia Well, it will not; it will only permit bringing to an end the discussing of them, and that very discussion itself is what we were advised is subject to legal challenge. The Labor Party made several comments that I will reply to. Yes, this legislation came in in 1992, with exemptions. The Herron report came in in 1995. What did the Labor Party do about it? Nothing. What was in the Labor Party's election policy in 1996? Nothing. What was in the Labor Party's election policy in 1998? Nothing. We proposed this in 1998.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—It's taken you four years.8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—We proposed this in 1998. It has not taken us four years; it has taken us substantially less. If you had been around a little bit longer, you might know a little bit about history rather than shooting your mouth off and showing how ignorant you are. The simple fact is that this does not apply to 2002 anyway, so at what point of the political cycle it is brought in does not matter. This is a political stunt. The Labor Party will stand condemned. This legislation will go down and the Labor Party will be responsible for bringing down what is the gold standard tobacco legislation in Australia.20:56:0021646Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—It is really unfortunate that the minister continues to behave in this way. We are trying to close a loophole that remains. It is a significant loophole. It is unfortunate that the minister is taking this attitude, because there is a loophole still in this bill. We are trying to close that loophole, and I say again to the minister that, if he is prepared to sit down and work with the opposition to get rid of this loophole so that we can end the tobacco sponsorship of political events such as Liberal Party dinners, we are very happy to do so. I would have thought that, as a health minister who does understand—and I know he does understand—the very serious dangers that tobacco smoking poses to all of our health, he would sit down and work out this loophole in a cooperative way. I am very disappointed that he is not taking this opportunity to strengthen the bill, which is what we are attempting to do, and I look forward to the time when we will be able to reintroduce this amendment and get it through as a result of a Labor government.Question put:That amendment (1) be disagreed to.21:02:00The House divided.(Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs J. Gash) 71Abbott, 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.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.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *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.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.59Albanese, A.N.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.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B *McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J..Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Sercombe, R.C.G.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.21:10:0021647Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I present the reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate. I move:That the reasons be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills21647R97121647Debate resumed from 8 December 1999, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.21:11:0021647McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—The opposition will not be opposing the second reading of the Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Bill 1999 or proposing any amendments in the House of Representatives, because we have not seen the full extent of the government's amendments. But I make it clear that we will not be satisfied unless the bill is substantially amended before it passes the Senate. I have to express my concern in those terms because we are not yet aware of how or how far the government intends to amend this bill in the House, which I have to say is a disgrace. We hope that those amendments will be substantial and will address the concerns which I will air during these remarks, in which case the bill should have after that a relatively easy passage through the House and the Senate. But I am concerned that it does not appear at this stage that the reasonable concerns of people in the arts industry are going to be met by this legislation and that therefore it will need to be the subject of substantial amendment before it can be passed and accepted by both houses of the parliament.I am very pleased that my colleague the member for Denison is in the chamber with me because in June 1994 when I was the minister for the arts and he was the Minister for Justice he and I jointly released a discussion paper entitled Proposed moral rights legislation for copyright creators. At that point we were proposing a process that we expected would lead rapidly to fill the gap in the legislative framework of intellectual property support for and recognition of the rights of creators in our society and that, long before this, adequate legislation would have been passed. In fact, draft moral rights amendments were prepared and circulated in February 1996. So, as the opposition shadow minister for the arts, I am pleased to see the government has finally seen fit to start to proceed seriously down this path towards moral rights amendments to the Copyright Act even if at this stage the amendments are only half the job. They are ill considered and they are not yet adequate, even after all this time.The examination of moral rights was a commitment made by the Keating government at the 1993 election. That then led to the discussion I referred to, the discussion paper which followed from it and the draft moral rights amendments as circulated in February 1996. However, shortly after that, in March 1996, there was a change of government, leading to this current government taking out a less than satisfactory approach to moral rights. In June 1997 we had a copyright amendment bill introduced and referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, which reported in October 1997.Serious concerns were raised at that time by different sectors of the arts community and the arts industry. The government could not come to terms with these concerns. It could not see its way through the complexity of this matter. I acknowledge that it is complex, but it is no more complex now than it was in 1993 or 1996. It is not as if this is an issue that others have not addressed; other countries have had regimes of varying natures over the years. While I know that some producers and art owners are concerned about the consequences of moral rights, we must remember that in Australia we tend to think that we cannot do what others can do. Others in the world have been able to operate vibrant artistic sectors and economically and culturally successful arts industries within the framework of strong moral rights legislation.The government could not come to terms with these problems, and it withdrew the moral rights provisions of the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997. So we had a bit of a dead end. Senator Alston, as Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, gave a commitment in June 1998 that he would reintroduce moral rights amendments by the end of 1998, after further consultation with interested parties on particular areas of contention. We waited and we waited and we waited, because the six months from June 1998 to the end of 1998 turned into 18 months, as the government got around to introducing this bill, the Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Bill 1999, in December 1999. It was a very disappointing performance by the government, to take so long and yet achieve so little. It took 18 months to introduce this current version of moral rights legislation—it has been a sad saga. Yet, after all this time, we do not have a bill before us that is satisfactory.As I have already stated, the Labor Party support the introduction of moral rights legislation. We have long argued for it. We have committed ourselves to it, and we remain committed to it. Moral rights seek to complement existing economic rights. They seek to deal not with the economic aspect of the creator's rights but with reputation and standing. The four basic types of moral rights that are discussed when people and countries around the world look at issues like this are: the right of attribution—that is, the right to be identified as the creator of material; the right of integrity—that is, the right to object to derogatory acts perpetrated on material, acts that are prejudicial to the creator's honour and reputation such as distortion, mutilation or unauthorised modification of material; the right of disclosure—that is, the right to determine if and when the material is made public; and the right of withdrawal—that is, the right to withdraw material from the public. It is not always the case that all four elements are present at one time, but that is the broad nature of what is referred to as `moral rights'.So it is appropriate that we proceed in this direction with a basis of principle, of philosophical commitment. But it is also the case that the 1971 Paris revision of the 1928 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works not only gives the constitutional power if we needed anything for it to proceed in that direction but virtually binds us to proceed. What the government is presenting seeks to meet those international obligations in relation to, at least, the rights of attribution and integrity. I have always supported the move in the direction of moral rights, and my party has supported it consistently. This is because recognition that a work is part of an author's character and personality and that they are entitled to control its utilisation, and the right of individuals to protect the integrity of their work and to ensure that their work is attributed to them, are at the core of moral rights. The right to be able to protect the work from derogatory treatment is self-evidently something that Australian artists should have. It remains for us to think about why, in that fairly straightforward context, it has taken so long and why artists are still waiting—I want to come back to that issue later. Before I do that, I want to divert slightly to a closely related issue about moral rights: the fundamental importance of moral rights for indigenous artists. While these rights are important to any artist, any creator, there are extra elements in the nature of the relationship between indigenous artists and their work. For many indigenous Australians, particularly those in traditional communities, art is an expression of all aspects of life and identity and it is a major way of passing on culture to future indigenous generations. What has become fascinating recently is the way in which art has become a means of communicating indigenous culture to the rest of Australia and to the rest of the world. Recent exhibitions here in Australia and around the world have captured international attention and focused it on this great contemporary art movement. Australians know that it is gloriously traditional, but it has been so recently discovered by the international community that it is seen as a great contemporary art movement. So it is that, as well as being a glorious tradition. So this communication of culture, of belief, of a way of life adds an extra element to the moral rights issue as it relates to indigenous artists. I am particularly talking here about the visual artists. Many indigenous artworks reflect culturally important content such as creation stories and ceremonies. Certain images, techniques and styles have developed over time originating from and identifying particular indigenous groups, and often indigenous law and custom control the use of these images. This adds an extra element of significance to the general and in any event important moral rights framework, because it is very important that these images are accurately reproduced. Their meaning is in their physical representation, and inaccurate reproduction of an artwork can cause deep offence to those familiar with the dreaming, almost analogous to religious offence. It is a depiction that can go deep to the heart of the meaning of the origin of life and the meaning of cultural continuity for an individual and a community. So the introduction of moral rights will be significant for indigenous artists. There are complex issues in relation to extending moral rights protection in areas where traditional ritual knowledge is collectively owned. This has not been addressed in the current legislation and, while I am critical of some parts of the legislation, I am not critical of that. That is an issue that will take a long time to work through and it needs further investigation. That is something we should revert to subsequently. I will come to some of my concerns about the legislation soon. While it is something important which is not in my view adequately covered in this legislation, I think that will take a while. We will not get to that quickly. Insofar as that relates to the concerns of indigenous artists, subject to the general concerns about some of the issues relating to visual artists to which I will refer subsequently, this bill is a step forward.What is the government proposing we should do in regard to this important and challenging area of cultural protection? To start to analyse it, we have to remember that the government was forced to withdraw the previous moral rights legislation, the 1997 version, because of its contentious inclusion of a waiver provision. I remember attending events and finding particularly the Writers Guild, covering screenwriters, out there demonstrating to all the passing traffic their concern about the waiver provision and its implications for their circumstance within the film and television industry. I want to compliment the Writers Guild for the strong and continuing work they have done in this area. The nature of that waiver provision would have enabled authors to give up all of their moral rights before a work was commenced. At that time screenwriters claimed that an up-front waiver rendered moral rights useless. Conversely, producers believed that it was a practical necessity because of the impact on investment. In every other area of the arts outside the film industry, an up-front waiver was opposed. It is one of those areas where the superficially plausible, which is why shouldn't people be able to agree in advance to a waiver, fails to recognise the different negotiating strengths of the parties to a negotiation. It is not reasonable to believe that in those circumstances a writer has equal bargaining power with a producer or that a sculptor has equal bargaining power with a city council which might be contracting to buy a work and setting the terms and conditions under which it might be bought and then subsequently displayed. So we needed to look at how we coped with that imbalance in the bargaining situation that was not addressed by the 1997 legislation. The government promised that the bill which they withdrew in 1997 would be reintroduced before the end of 1998 after there had been what they called stakeholder consultation to resolve differences on waiver. I have to say that they have not got there, but with a bit of further work they might get there. That is why I said right at the beginning that I hope we will find some amendments from the government here in the House or, if they cannot bring themselves to do that, in the Senate that will start to deal with some of the problems that the government have ignored. Otherwise, the opposition will be moving amendments in the Senate to seek to ensure that that takes place. This bill was introduced into this House on 8 December. What it is seeking to do, as I have said, is to provide protection for the moral rights of authors, composers, playwrights, artists, film writers, directors and producers. It is different from the 1997 bill. It has replaced the previous waiver clause with what I think we can call a de facto waiver, which is in clause 195AW. Screenwriters have—this is welcome—been included as authors of what the bill calls cinematograph films. Provision has been made for co-authorship agreements whereby screenwriters, directors and producers may jointly exercise their rights of integrity.In some ways, that sounds quite okay. I will refer in a moment to the process which led to some of those changes within the film industry, but beyond the film industry the government does not seem to be able to get the point that what is acceptable in that sector as a result of a negotiated outcome is not appropriate and of general application. The opposition has many problems with the proposed legislation as it stands. The main concern is that the government has taken an agreement that was reached on moral rights in the film and television industry and is attempting to apply it inappropriately to all arts sectors. I welcome the fact that ultimately we have an agreed film and television moral rights proposal. It was agreed by a pretty broadly representative group: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Australian Film Commission, Australian Film Finance Corporation, Australian Guild of Screen Composers, Australian Screen Directors Association, Australian Screen Editors, Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association, Australian Writers Guild, Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, Fox Australia, Screen Producers Association, and SBS. That is a pretty representative group. I welcome the fact that eventually they were able to come to an agreement. I know it was not easy. The proposal on which they agreed clearly states in the first paragraph:This is a proposal by the representatives of producers, writers, directors, composers, distributors, editors, production designers and broadcasters (collectively the Industry) for the introduction of moral rights legislation, particularly as they relate to a cinematograph film (Film).That is an accurate description of the agreement, but the problem is that the government has adopted the proposals that are agreed as specific and appropriate to the film industry and it is attempting to apply them to all arts sectors. Can it be that, even after all this time, the government does not really understand why moral rights are important and what the effect will be of introducing them in the way it is proposing, in particular for visual artists? I continue to use the example of visual artists—it is the starkest example but not the only example. I understand the arguments put forward by the film and television industry as to why they should be treated differently from the rest of the arts sector in relation to moral rights. I respect their position. I welcome the fact that they came to an agreement and I believe that agreement should be accommodated in the legislation.I can also understand that the film industry did not suggest for one moment that it would be appropriate to apply their agreement and their recommendations to the entire arts sector. Certainly, the other arts sectors have not and do not agree that that should be so. The whole rationale for the further discussion with the film and television sector was based on the realisation that it had a special case in relation to some aspects of moral rights, not that it was the standard against which everything else should be judged. How could the government choose to ignore other Australian artists, such as authors, composers and sculptors? Why have these arguments fallen on deaf ears? Because the Attorney-General, the member for Gippsland and Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, and Senator Alston should recall receiving submissions from the Arts Law Centre of Australia on 9 February, 18 February and 7 July this year, all bringing this blunder to their attention. Perhaps they remember the submission of 18 February, which was a joint submission setting out the position of the film and television industry and other arts industries. The letter states: The organisations representing the arts and not party to the film and television industry negotiations and agreement wish to state up front that their second overriding concern—this is in the context of a letter about other matters—is that the proposed legislation fails to take into account the interests outside the film and television industry. The 1999 Bill appears to have wholeheartedly adopted principles contained in the film and television moral rights agreement. The negotiations in the film and television sector were always understood to apply to that sector alone.Yet they have had no response. More recently, on 7 July the Arts Law Centre of Australia, concerned about the lack of response from the government, wrote restating the unified position of the arts sector that the film and television agreement should apply only to film and television. But there has been no response from the government. What is the specific consequence of that failure? The major problem is in relation to section 195AW, `Authors consent to an act or omission'. In its current form, the government has done nothing but reintroduce a de facto waiver. What is being introduced is the recommendation from the film and television agreement that is specific to film and television. Unless changed, the consent provisions render this legislation virtually useless. They will work against the interests of all those artists who are not involved in film and television. They are virtually useless because they put artists in a position where they could be forced to sign a consent and in effect waive all their moral rights.In my view, there should be no difficulty in amending the current legislation to allow for employees in film and television to consent to forgoing their moral rights while maintaining a regime for other artists that ensure that each act or omission is consented to in writing and is specific to a particular work. For some reason, the government seems unable to deal with a set of moral rights that provides room for a particular set of circumstances that apply in particular to the film and television industry and at the same time to address the concerns of the wider arts community. It is a simple thing to do and the legislation should be amended to achieve this end.Of course, the difficulty in this debate is that the government might actually have seen reason in relation to making this sensible amendment, but they have not discussed it with the arts industry and they have not advised the opposition, so I am not in a position to know whether that is the case or not. I can assume that, if they were going to do what the industry wanted, they would have told them. But I do not know and the House does not know. I can say to the government that the outcome of my discussions with the arts industry is that they are not pleased with the current consent provision and that both the film and the television sectors and the rest of the arts industry believe that the legislation should be amended to accommodate a more comprehensive position.We are also concerned with 195AZM, which refers to the application of the moral rights outlined in the bill. It also implements the film and television agreement without any consideration for the rest of the arts industry. The way the current bill stands, integrity of authorship is limited to works that are made on or after the commencement of the legislation. It would be very simple for this section to be amended to enable right of integrity to subsist in relation to works made before or after the commencement of the legislation, except in relation to film. Again, this is a position which should take into consideration the comprehensive view of the arts industry, but the government do not seem to be concerned or aware and there is no sign that they are proposing these amendments. There is also a concern with 195AN, which outlines that, in respect of the death of the author of a work, the exercise of moral rights may be by his or her legal personal representative or, in the event of bankruptcy, may be by the person exercising his or her affairs. There is a unified view in the arts industry that moral rights in respect of a work cannot be given to another person except in the circumstances outlined above. But proposed section 4, about which I am also concerned, refers to co-authorship agreements where two or more authors may agree not to exercise their rights of integrity of authorship in respect of a work except jointly. As I have said, there is a unified view in the arts industry that these co-authorship agreements should be limited to the film and television sectors. It would be a simple matter to amend the current proposal by limiting these particular coauthorship agreements to the film and television sector. Proposed section 195AT is, in my view, also deficient as it allows for the destruction, change or restoration of artistic work without proper notification of the artist. In conclusion, it must be remembered that the government is 12 months late in coming back to the parliament with these amendments. Instead of the end of 1998, we got this bill in December 1999 and we are now proceeding to try to put it through the House at the end of October 2000. This is an indication of the importance that this government places on the issue of moral rights. The reason for removing the moral rights provision from the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 was to allow for further consultation on contentious parts of the proposed legislation, mainly around the issue of a waiver. For some reason the government is unable to jointly address the specific and legitimate concerns of the film and television industry while recognising the concerns of the rest of the arts community. If the government will not act on this, we will. We will move amendments in the Senate to achieve this. I hope the government will take a more bipartisan and inclusive approach to the necessary introduction of comprehensive moral rights legislation for all Australian artists. But, if the government will not act on these concerns which I have outlined, we will.21:41:0021652Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—The member for Fraser conveniently overlooks the fact that it was 12 years ago that the Copyright Law Review Committee had cause to examine the efficacy of a moral rights system. He conveniently overlooks the fact that their majority decision went against the creation of such a system. By 1993 the then federal government, seeking to bolster its political and financial support in the arts sector, undertook to hold another review. Yet, despite the appearance of a related discussion paper in 1994, it was not until February 1996 that an exposure draft for a moral rights bill was publicly released. So I think it would have been a gracious act for the member for Fraser to concede that indeed his party, when in government, took some considerable time to even get this issue off the drawing board. In fact, it got to a point whereby the Australian Copyright Council in a publication asked somewhat plaintively: is Australia on the road to formally recognising moral rights or is this one international obligation that will never be formally implemented?After the change in government in 1996, consultation on the exposure draft led to moral rights provisions being included in the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997. After referral to a Senate committee and much public comment, those provisions were removed from that bill in order for them to be better crafted to address the concerns that had been raised. This is called consultation. This is what governments should do—consult with and respond to community concerns. Since that time the Copyright Law Review Committee has also had cause to consider the moral rights issue, publishing a report in February last year, and there has been ongoing consultation with industry groups.By way of overview, I should say that laws of contract and laws of property rights are the very bedrock of our society—not simply the commercial and economic framework upon which is hung our prosperity and our material wellbeing but the very essence of what it is to be a free person and to be a creator. By taking into our hands the right to exercise control over that which we produce, we achieve a freedom that was denied throughout most of history. We therefore seek to ensure through the law that the material we create cannot be appropriated by others and that the benefits accorded to that which we create flow only to those to whom it is appropriate that they flow. This is the basis of our copyright laws—laws that protect the economic rights of artists and other creators. Before the House this evening we will consider, through the Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Bill 1999, legislation that will amend those laws to ensure that not merely the economic rights of authors are protected. There has been a long history, particularly in Europe, of authors' rights extending beyond the economic value of their work to the artistic value of that work. These rights are personal rather than economic, such as the right to attribution—that is, the right to be identified as the author—the right to preservation of the integrity of the work and the right to disclose and to withdraw work. These artistic rights are known as moral rights. They are not about morals or morality per se; rather this is a legal concept that acknowledges a creator's work. These rights have also been expressed in international law, most notably in article 6 of the 1971 Paris revision of the 1928 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, a convention to which Australia is a party. Yet Australian law has not, until now, accorded artists that same degree of protection afforded by other jurisdictions as there has been no explicit recognition of moral rights. The opposition achieved little, if anything, in this regard in its 13 long years in government. There has been a degree of uncertainty about the extent to which a copyright owner can exploit their published work. The right to attribution is pretty non-controversial, but the right of integrity has been more so. While the Copyright Act does provide a limited right to attribution—that is, the right to be identified as the creator of a work—Australian artists seeking to enforce moral rights have in the past been required to utilise less effective areas of the law for dealing with these situations: for example, the Trade Practices Act, where there is the possibility of using section 52 to protect against false attribution, or perhaps section 53, or there is the common law of torts. But this is an unsatisfactory situation, with the combination of common law and legislation still not meeting the standard of protection of moral rights as set out in the Berne convention.Interestingly, in the US there has been strong resistance to moral rights legislation by the very powerful lobby of Hollywood film producers. There has long been a strain between authors and directors, who want to maintain what they call `creative control', and producers, who want to be able to keep a film's commercial appeal, thus altering the script or the film, with the end result sometimes being virtually unrecognisable once the producers have taken hold of the script. It is also worth noting that it is apparent that the new technologies as they apply to the entertainment industry will exacerbate the concerns of copyright owners and creators. The new technologies can change forever how business operates, particularly given the proliferation of the means of distribution. The film industry, of course, has always been subject to change. Ever since moving pictures were invented a century ago, new ways of distributing entertainment have emerged probably about once every generation. Each such innovation has changed the industry irreversibly and each such change is usually accompanied by a period of trepidation and then excitement—films to television, cable television and video and now the arrival of digital technology, which can translate music, pictures and text into the zeroes and ones of computer language. It is obviously one of those exhilarating yet uncertain periods. So any certainty that can be proffered to creators of copyright work is obviously welcomed in this environment.The call for an effective moral rights system for Australia has had a long history, but perhaps that is not surprising. The bill before us today reintroduces the provisions from the exposure draft of 1997, with a number of changes—namely, the previous provision for moral rights to be waived has been disregarded. Writers of screenplays have joined producers and directors as the joint authors of films and a new provision for co-authorship agreements has been included. Furthermore, the bill meets the commitment given by the coalition at the 1996 and 1998 elections to the introduction of comprehensive moral rights. I can foreshadow that amendments will be proposed by the government as a result of further recent consultation with industry groups, and that is a positive step. That is the government responding to stakeholder concerns. I understand that the concerns of the Arts Law Centre have also been taken into account. As it stands, the bill introduces a moral rights system that applies to literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and films but not to sound recordings. It includes the right to attribution, the right against false attribution and the right to object to derogatory treatment of a work that would in turn affect the integrity of the author or creator. Exceptions to these rights are allowed for under the terms of the bill where `reasonable', with the onus being on the defendant to demonstrate how the infringement of moral rights is reasonable. Therefore, the bill provides the courts with a list of factors to be weighed up when determining reasonableness in this regard. Where an author does not wish to exercise the moral rights they have been accorded, they may give written consent for certain acts or omissions that would otherwise be considered an infringement. This system of written consent is superior to the previously proposed waiver system, which was claimed by some authors to be open to abuse. Where an infringement of moral rights has occurred, remedies may include injunctions, the granting of damages, declarations, orders for public apologies and orders for the reversal or removal of infringements. The courts will, however, give their priority to the resolution of disputes through negotiation or mediation.Perhaps it should be noted that, while the passage of these moral rights protections will be to the benefit of authors and artists, users of copyright materials, such as broadcasters, advertisers, film-makers and publishers, should not be impeded. Rights may still be satisfied without the need for clearance from a work's creator as part of industry practice and in an environment in which negotiation and consent is, where necessary, encouraged. The protection of moral rights, originally proposed to be for the duration of copyright protection—that is, 50 years after death or film publication—under this bill as it stands was to cease upon the death of the author, although I understand there will be amendments drafted that will effectively reinstate the original position. This legislation does acknowledge the significance of the integrity of creative endeavour in this country. It supports the talents of our authors, artists, film-makers and other creators of copyright works. It marks yet another important reform of copyright law in Australia by this government, joining the reforms implemented under the Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Act 1999 and the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000. I commend the bill to the House.21:53:0021654McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I note that the former speaker, the member for Curtin, made a sound contribution and indicated that the government was itself intending to propose some amendments to the Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Bill 1999. I must say that it would have been good to have seen those amendments before this debate. It is perhaps regrettable that the same consultation that occurred in respect of those acts mentioned by the former speaker, in particular the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act, was not followed here. I am sure that sitting down to discuss these alternatives would come up with workable solutions.The concept of moral rights is important. The term `moral' is perhaps a misnomer; it does not have much to do with morality, although I suppose one would say that it is moral to recognise that those who create artistic works are entitled to have their authorship recognised and to have others respect the integrity of their work. As the previous speaker mentioned, there is an argument that our existing laws are sufficient to protect those rights, and indeed a 1988 report suggested that legislation was not necessary because of those laws which we have. As the previous speaker also mentioned, various aspects of the common law touch on this issue, such as laws about passing off or representing an artistic work to be other than the creator's and laws of defamation with respect to misrepresenting someone's work. There has been an argument that provisions of the Trade Practices Act, such as section 52 in respect of misleading conduct, would also be relevant to those passing-off situations. Also, there is an argument that these moral rights of authorship may be recognised in section 35(5) of the Copyright Act, which provides that altering a work in any fashion other than that stated in an agreement is an offence. With respect to integrity, section 55(2) provides that it is a breach of copyright if the copyright owner debases an adaptation of a musical work. However, there is a whole range of areas where the law has been shown to be inadequate, and I will give some examples so that people can apply it to everyday examples. A sculpture on display at an institution was spray-painted and had additions made to it so that it was more stable, allowing children to climb on it. That may be a good thing for children but it was not the intention of the sculptor who created the work. A painting in three panels was to be exhibited with all panels together as a complete work; however, in its initial display the work was presented with the panels separated, which distorted the effect of the work. Another example: the buyer of a painting added spots all over it to match his sofa. That would perhaps suit the décor of the room but it could be offensive to the work of art. A Sydney corporation commissioned a sculpture, but when it was found that the work did not fit into the foyer of the building, the top third of the work was simply lopped off. Those are practical examples of why legislation of this nature is needed. We in the opposition certainly accept that the protection of these moral or non-economic rights of artists, producers and authors is important. I suppose the concept of moral rights could be broken down into several different parcels, if you like. One parcel is the right of attribution; that is, the author's right to be known to the public as the creator of the work. There is also the right of integrity, which is the right to object to distortions or mutilations of a work which would prejudicially affect the author's honour or reputation—such as the spots to match the sofa. The right of disclosure is the author's right to determine if and when a work is to be divulged to the public. That is an important right. The right of withdrawal is the right to withdraw a work from the public if the author wishes.These categories of rights are based on the Berne convention, as the previous speaker mentioned. This is another example to those who condemn the international treaty system. Treaties have played an important part in developing an important aspect of commerce. When the copyright treaties were first negotiated, late last century, the importance of intellectual property could not possibly have been contemplated, particularly in the electronic environment. These conventions have provided structure and, in dealing recently with the issue of moral rights, the Berne convention is relevant. Clause 6 provides:Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation.Those are sound principles, and this legislation is an attempt to implement the provisions of that treaty, as the Attorney-General indicated in his second reading speech. However, we do have concerns that, because of some provisions, the bill does not achieve that outcome.Going back to the history of this legislation in order to establish that the Labor Party regards this legislation as important, in June 1994 the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department issued a discussion paper which proposed moral rights legislation; and, in February 1996, the Labor government issued an exposure draft of a bill to amend the Copyright Act which included these moral rights. We note that the government introduced the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997, which included moral rights protections; however, that was withdrawn as a result of dissent within certain industries and professional and artistic bodies. Again, the controversial issue of waiver was the primary reason why the bill was withdrawn. In February 1999, the Copyright Law Review Committee completed its report, Simplification of the Copyright Act—which is a very important report, I must say, for anyone interested in this area. That committee recommended that this issue of moral rights be revisited, and here we have—one year after the government said it intended to introduce this legislation—the matter before the House. Our primary concern with this legislation is that it implements what we understand to be an agreement that has been struck with the various players in the film and television industry. We in the Labor Party regard that industry as being vitally important. In terms of their priorities, I think all Labor governments have done an extreme amount to foster and develop Australia's film industry, and we are finally seeing the rewards of that effort. Sure, we have not been the only players in that field. I think Prime Minister Gorton also achieved a lot in developing the embryonic television industry. The development of the film and television industry remains a priority for Labor. Indeed, the industry not only is a source of foreign exchange and talented Australians but also is vitally important to the development of our culture and the portrayal of that culture to the international community. We acknowledge that there are special concerns that need to be addressed for the film and television industry, but that does not mean that, in addressing those problems, they apply across the board to writers, authors of books or creators of artistic works. They just do not logically apply. In the film and television industry there is by its nature a number of creators of works in any particular product—for example, there may be directors shooting various scenes; there may be a compilation of various clips of movies; there may be a combination of the works of choreographers, musical directors and stage creators. A whole box and dice of creative works tends to go into television and film productions. Having a capacity for all those creators to consent to their works being modified is sensible. It may involve simply a modification of some lengthy movie so that it is capable of being broadcast on television, or the removal of scenes that do not meet the censor's expectations so that a product actually becomes marketable. All these practical considerations apply in the television industry, but they are not the same issues that apply with respect to the other areas of artistic works, including sculptures and paintings. I note, for instance, that both the United States and Canada—particularly the United States Visual Artists Rights Act 1990—certainly give different attention to the protection of artistic works by sculptors and painters as opposed to a more liberal approach to the film and television industry. There seems to be nothing inconsistent or illogical in that. Indeed, there is good reason for that difference to apply. As I indicated, we do have concerns with particular aspects of the bill—firstly, in terms of the application of moral rights. Section 195AZM refers to the application of moral rights outlined in the bill applying only after the date of the bill's enactment, other than with respect to the acknowledgment of authorship, which is appropriate. We say that that is not sensible. There is just as much offence in cutting the top third of a sculpture that was created before the bill as chopping a third off a sculpture that was created after the bill is enacted. Again, we feel the government has been overly influenced by its desire to accommodate the film and television industry agreement. But it would be very easy to structure that particular section to which I have referred so that the converse applied; that is, it would apply to artistic works created before or after the enactment of this legislation, with an exception for the film and television industry. One would think that drafting would be easy to achieve.The other section that we have concerns with is section 195AN. This section deals with the application of moral rights or the loss of moral rights after the death of the author. In particular, there is a concern—as the shadow minister for the arts indicated—regarding section 195(4) which deals with co-authorship. It provides that the authors may enter into a written co-authorship agreement where each agrees not to exercise his or her right of integrity of authorship in respect of a work except jointly with the other author or authors. Again, that arrangement, particularly where there are so many who collaborate in the production of film and television works, may be appropriate but it is certainly not appropriate with respect to written works or the creation of other works of arts. Our main concern, however, is with respect to the ability to obtain consent from the creator of an artistic work for the abandonment of their moral rights. Again, it is a fact of life, I suppose, that for those who participate in the film and television industry there needs to be that flexibility. Just to demonstrate the point, I will read a few of the provisions of the bill. Subsection (1) of proposed section 195AW of the bill provides that:It is not an infringement of a moral right of an author in respect of a work to do, or omit to do, something if the act or omission is within the scope of a written consent given by the author.That is very broadly expressed. Subsection (4) provides that:A consent may be unconditional ...Subsection (5) includes the provision that the waiver will extend to his or her licensees and successors of the owner of the work; that is, it will follow on in perpetuity as the work is passed in possession in title. Subsection (6) provides that subsections (2) to (5) do not limit the operation of that very broad subsection (1).So it is an extremely broadly drafted facility to waive consent. Again, we have concerns that the reality will be that, if the creator of these works wants a contract, the person commissioning the artist will simply say, `Sign this or on your bike; we will get someone else.' So the mere facility to obtain that consent will, in our apprehension, cause a situation where undue pressure can be brought to bear. The Arts Law Centre of Australia—and I note that some talented lawyers have made very sensible and sound submissions to the government—have suggested that that amendment is appropriate. We hope the government will take that on board. There are also other issues where this bill has not perhaps been as thorough as it might have been. For instance, with respect to the Internet, there still remain significant questions regarding the liability of Internet service providers under this legislation. I think it is fair to say that an Internet service provider will be regarded as broadcasting or transmitting this material and that an Internet service provider will be copying or duplicating this material. For instance, if an Internet service provider provides access to someone of a photo of a famous work of art that has been distorted by, say, substituting the Prime Minister's head for the Mona Lisa's, that Internet service provider could be liable under this legislation for the act of transmission, unless they are able to activate some defence provisions. But those provisions in themselves leave quite some uncertainty. So I think that, just as those matters were addressed in the digital agenda area, the issue in respect of this rapidly increasing use of the Internet also needs to be more thoroughly addressed in this moral rights area. In summary, I have traversed a number of the concerns of the Australian Labor Party. Fundamentally, however, moral rights are rights which justify legislative protection and we would welcome the opportunity to sit down with the government to properly address our concerns which have been similarly addressed by very experienced, sensible and balanced people who practice in this area.22:11:0021657Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—The government has given a lot of attention over the last couple of years to the whole area of copyright. The government recognises that, in linking intellectual property with the law, it is important that Australia has confidence in the future of intellectual property and that creators of intellectual property have a sense of security and certainty in their production so that there is no economic or other loss to them as the creators. The Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Bill 1999 is no exception to that process. In creating moral rights, the bill breaks new ground to some extent, but it is very much in the mould of the Copyright Act—that is, protecting something that is new and different, assigning to the creator certain capacities to have their ability and creation recognised as uniquely theirs. The government has expanded on areas of copyright contained in the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 through theCopyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999 and, more recently, the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 2000. A number of functions in these copyright areas have been put to the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. That committee spent a lot of time taking evidence and presented a very fine advisory report to the House of Representatives on the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 2000. That advice was mostly picked up by the government. I believe that some of the concepts contained in the committee's report could very well apply to the issue of moral rights of authors and creators. I refer in particular to the concept of new media, the concept of first digitisation, where something is for the first time turned into an electronic form for transmission—for example, advertising an artistic exhibition or the existence of galleries. Recently I received catalogues of proposed exhibitions to be held in the National Gallery over the coming months. They are of great quality. Within those catalogues there are representations of the artistic pieces that will be on display. That type of material can now be reproduced digitally and transmitted across vast distances—in fact, to the other side of the earth. What are the author's rights if, with one stroke of a key, myriad reproductions can go to all ends of the earth with the author being unaware of that process? The concept put forward by the House of Representatives committee in this instance was that digitisation was the process that should draw the copyright accreditation and payment and remuneration, if necessary, to the author or creator.Having said that, the moral rights aspect of copyright goes one step further and deals with what has been described as a bundle of rights and a closer definition, an analysis, of what proprietary advantage the creator should have over the works that are uniquely theirs. Do they have a right that goes beyond what can be described as an economic right? Does a person who is a creator have a right for the retention of their work irrespective of whether it is considered obnoxious or impractical or whether it can be vastly improved by some minor changes? In the film and television industry there is a merging of technologies and the processes of digitisation cut across into the production of film and television, whether it be cinematography or a reproduction of a stage play, and there may well be some creative works of graphics or creativity in the electronic medium itself.I guess what I am saying is that there is such an interweaving of all of these forms of media and creativity that, when one looks at the electronic reproduction, one has to be very careful that the original author, screenwriter or artist is not misrepresented as that interweaving takes place—that there is not a loss of integrity or intention in the process. Hence the development of the moral rights concept. It is a new concept—one that is founded, I understand, in the Berne convention. In particular, the rights are referred to in article 6 bis under the Berne convention. These rights were only conferred on an individual because the individual is the creator. It is no good a company, a partnership or some other conglomeration of individuals saying, `We have a corporate right.' That is not the concept of moral rights. It is to identify the individual who is the creator and to confer on them the rights of this legislation.Let us look at some of the moral rights contained in the bill. This makes fascinating reading for a layperson because it gives a layperson a better understanding of the way in which the creativity and intellectual property of individuals are becoming more significant in our society. Therefore, these creative efforts need just as much protection as if we were dealing with a motor car, patent rights or all the other protections that are well-known. This is a protection of ideas and creativity. The moral rights are conferred on individuals, as I have indicated, and they are conferred on the director, producer and screenwriter of cinematograph film. The moral rights, as far as film is concerned, are only conferred on the principal director—none of the assistants—the principal producer and the principal screenwriter. These are the people who are the creative geniuses that produce a particular film. Moral rights are additional to other rights, including economic rights. They are a separate and significant right. Concerning the right of authorship, the author has a right of attribution of their authorship. The author's right is to be identified as the author. For example, in relation to a film, the director, the producer and the screenwriter should be identified wherever the film is copied, exhibited in public or transmitted. The same thing applies to the person who has done the writing of any material, whether it be literary, dramatic or musical, artistic works or in film. All of these instances require that a process of attribution take place to the author. The way in which the author is identified is spelled out clearly in the legislation. It is no good somebody saying, `I am not aware that so and so created that particular film or that so and so was an author of a particular writing.' There is no way in which the responsibilities for displaying the correct identification of the author can be avoided. There is a need for reasonably prominent identification and there is guidance within the legislation of what is considered a reasonably prominent identification.There is also a right that the author should not have a work falsely attributed, so there is the concept contained in the act that somebody who has a reputation that is high cannot have that reputation destroyed by somebody falsely attributing a work to them, whether that be, as I said earlier, a work of literary, dramatic or musical character, whether it be an artistic work or a work of film.DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim Fischer—So integrity is maintained. SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—Integrity must be maintained. There is the identification and then the denial of false attribution. The bill provides that it is an act of false attribution in relation to a literary, dramatic or musical work to insert or affix a person's name in or on a work or in or on a reproduction of the work in a way that implies falsely that the person is an author of the work or that that work is an adaptation of the work of the person. That is illegal. A person cannot imply that they are the creator of an original work if that is not the case. There is also the false attribution, and this would cover the situation where a person's name is placed near, in addition to or on the work in such a way as to falsely imply that the person is the author of the work. The same thing applies for film as for an artistic work. Also there is a provision to prevent the false attribution of authorship of altered literary, dramatic or musical artistic work. If something has been changed, to claim that that person was the inventor of the total work or was the creator of the total work is again an offence before the act. This is a significant change to the current situation. The author has a right of integrity of authorship. Derogatory treatment of literary, dramatic or musical work is also considered to be derogatory towards the author or the creator. There is a provision that allows for the duration and exercise of these moral rights. Previous speakers have spoken about these provisions. In the case of an author, it is 50 years beyond the death of the author, in the case of a film 50 years from the end of the year of the completion of that film. There is a protection of an ongoing character. This is landmark legislation. I know that the Labor Party is not completely content with all of it. There is this waiver concept that I think is a difficult concept. How can you deny your rights? How can you assign away the fact that you have been the creator? That is known as the waiver clause. If we had realised the difficulties in concepts that we have come across, it might have been better for this legislation to go off to a parliamentary committee for further investigation, as did the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill. That produced legislation that the House was generally happy with and the government was fairly happy with. I go no further than that; the government was only fairly happy with it, but it picked up a number of amendments, and those amendments have been put into legislation. I wish to compliment the Attorney-General for his willingness to move ahead in these significant areas. If there is going to be any real value in an international sense in Australia's brains, our intellect, we have to protect that intellect. It does not matter whether we are talking about software writers or screenwriters. We need to be able to protect that creative genius. There is no doubt that worldwide the capacity of Australians to think their way through difficult problems has attracted a lot of attention. We talk of the brain drain, and it is a real fact that the capacity of Australian intellect is being sought worldwide. We need to protect that creative element. It does not matter whether it is in the electronic form of the Internet or somewhere else. Electronic intellect is becoming more in demand and there are very significant businesses being established around the capacity for someone to create web sites, to create visions on the Internet. There is nothing less creative about that approach than there is about a pure work of art, whether it be on canvas, by a sculptor, a musical play, a screenplay or an artistic endeavour of another type. All of these things have a significant input of creativity, and that creativity should remain the property of the person who has that creative capacity.The value of property, of businesses and of entertainment in the future, is going to depend on our capacity to protect that creative right. If we do not do it as a nation, the fact is that people are going to either knock off or take out of the country our creative geniuses and we will lose them altogether. We will lose the economic benefit. Australia will not be known as a nation that encourages creativity. We will not be known as a nation that has the capacity to develop an intellectual strength. Mr Speaker, I am sure you agree with me that the Attorney-General is breaking new ground in the protection of copyright and creativity by the protection of intellectual property. This is a good step forward. I know there are changes needed, and there will be changes made by the government, but they are minor. They are changes that will be beneficial to the creative people of Australia, but that does not take away from the fact that this is a great piece of work for the Australian people.Debate interrupted.Adjournment21660Motion (by Dr Stone) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.2166022:29:0021660Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—I would like to take this opportunity to speak on a matter which is of great importance not only to the people of Swan but to all Australians. I speak of the ridiculously high price of fuel and the impact it is having on all Australians. As a result of the concern being expressed to my office regarding this issue, I decided to seek support from the community to call for a Senate inquiry into fuel prices. I circulated a petition within my electorate and I can report to the House that it received overwhelming support. Over 4,800 people have so far signed the document which reads as follows:TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ASSEMBLED IN PARLIAMENTThe petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the extremely high price of petrol and other fuels and the increase in the amount of tax on fuel due to:· The Government's failure to keep its promise that the price of petrol and other fuels would not rise as a result of the new tax system, by reducing the excise by the full amount of the GST;· The fuel indexation increases on 1 August 2000 and 1 February 2001, which will be significantly higher than usual because of the inflationary impact of the GST;and · The charging of the GST on the fuel excise, making it a tax-on-a-tax.Your petitioners therefore request the House to:· Hold the Government to its promise that its policies would not increase the price of petrol and other fuel;· Support a full Senate inquiry into the taxation and pricing of fuel;· Consider the best way to return the fuel tax windfall to Australian motorists.My electorate contains a very high percentage of seniors. Most of them are on a pension and are already suffering from the government's broken promise regarding the aged persons bonus. The cost of fuel to those who can actually afford a vehicle is having a crippling effect on their ability to lead normal lives. What do they forgo: the ability to put a decent meal on the table every night, or the need to fill the car with fuel to do the weekly shopping? They receive no sympathy from this government. In response to their pleas for help, this government tries to convince them that they have never had it so good. This group is typical of those most affected by high fuel prices. It is time the government woke up to a few facts. Fuel is too expensive, and an inquiry is urgently required to help find solutions to the problem. `What can be done?' the government cries. Let us look at just a few of the issues for the inquiry so far.The government failed to reduce the excise rate by the same amount as the incoming GST, and motorists have paid more for fuel with the GST despite the PM's promise that the price would not increase. Further, this has created an inflationary spike which in February will cause a further increase in price above and beyond that which would be normal. But the government is happy for this to occur, as it will just raise more taxes. Why is there an excise difference between the price of leaded and unleaded fuel? Remember that the excise was different to encourage people to get out of their old polluting vehicles into unleaded vehicles. But with the introduction of lead replacement fuel the emissions are similar to unleaded fuel. It has been suggested that because it costs more to produce lead replacement fuel the excise should remain higher. But you do not have to be Einstein to know that if a product costs more to produce and you are therefore charged more at the pump you will pay more tax through a higher GST bill, and a higher excise rate only increases the burden. The price of diesel has reached a ridiculous figure and many owner-drivers are going broke. Even if they are receiving the government rebate they cannot cope. Why is diesel so expensive? It is strange that this happened about the same time as the rebate was introduced. Who is making the increased profits? Why do franchisees have to purchase all their fuel from the parent fuel company? Surely legislation such as that introduced by the member for Hunter needs to be supported by the coalition. This legislation would allow franchisees to shop around for fuel to get the best possible price and has the support of the Motor Traders Association of Australia, the National Farmers Federation, the ACCC, the Australian Democrats, various state consumer affairs ministers and the Western Australian government's own fuel inquiry. At a time when the use of LPG should be encouraged for environmental reasons, the government has placed a GST on this fuel that previously had no excise, which has dramatically increased the cost.Action needs to taken urgently. The establishment of this inquiry would begin a much needed process of review which can only benefit the Australian motorist. I therefore call on the government to act and heed the call of the petitioners.2166122:34:0021661Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—Tonight I would like to salute the Paralympians and all associated with the very successful Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games. The Paralympians—the athletes—were fantastic, positive, wonderful people from all over the world. There were over 120 teams and some 6,600 people in the Paralympic Village at its peak. I salute their brilliant and brave contribution to all that we have been privileged to enjoy over the last fortnight or so in and around Sydney. I salute the International Paralympic Committee, led by Dr Robert Steadward, who provided the overall leadership for the Paralympic movement moving on from Atlanta to Sydney and from Sydney to Athens, and who spoke so magnificently of the Sydney Paralympic Games about this time last night. The SPOC, the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee, led by Dr John Grant and Lois Appleby, are deserving of absolute commendation for the role they played in carrying the difficult burden forward, in liaison with Minister Knight and others, in the shadow to some extent of SOCOG but nevertheless getting the job done, getting it done on time and getting it done well. The Australian Paralympic Committee, its chef de mission, Paul Bird, helped by the member for Cowan and so many others, did a terrific job in what was quite a huge logistical exercise in managing a large Paralympic team in the confines of the village, with 18 different sports in operation and having to get athletes to and from 18 different venues and the like. Paul Bird and his athletes can walk tall—and in fact they will on Wednesday night when there is a special parliamentary dinner in their honour which I understand the Prime Minister will be attending. The Prime Minister, along with the Governor-General, has given terrific support to the Paralympics and to the Australian Paralympic Committee during the games. I was pleased to hear the Acting Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition speak of the Paralympics earlier today. They were at the closing ceremony last night.I guess a great take on the success of the games was the assessment of one US Paralympic athlete whose words really rang in my ears when, a couple of days ago, this person told me that at Atlanta they, the officials, seemed to be there for themselves but here in Sydney `you guys are here for us'. It was a telling point. It was backed up by another Australian Paralympian who made the point as to why he embarked on the agony of all that training. He embarked on that to partake of the Paralympics—in his case I think it was his third Paralympic Games—because, as he said, `I like to be with positive people and you will not see a negative person associated with the Paralympic effort.' He was right.It was a great privilege to be Mayor of the Paralympic Village. I did not expect to undertake that role when a phone call came as a bolt from the blue, just after I had stepped down as Minister for Trade and came back from East Timor. When Minister Michael Knight rang extending the invitation, I discussed it at length with Judy, as is my want, and reached a conclusion that perhaps I could help by taking up that commitment as Mayor of the Paralympic Village. It was a great village of colour, movement and modernity. It had a huge kitchen, with huge bulk breakfasts. Indeed, one famous sailor nearly drowned in cornflakes when he pressed the wrong buttons one morning and a great tonnage of cornflakes descended upon him. 220,000 bananas were consumed. Over 100,000 fire-blight-free apples of Australian origin were consumed. Over 80,000 oranges were consumed. There was one Paralympian who had an absolute request of two T-bone steaks for breakfast, lunch and dinner and nothing else. This order was accommodated along with many other special orders. There was a wonderful bonhomie and a wonderful spirit. Of course, that is the motto of the Paralympics—Mind, body and spirit. It was a great privilege to help. I was a beneficiary, as so many good people attending the games were, in being able to soak up the positive, dynamic spirit of the Paralympians. I salute them all. It is good to remain connected to the electorate throughout, thanks to the Internet, but—better still—we had the very best Paralympic Games ever staged in the history of the world.2166222:39:0021662Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I rise to express my concern about what is happening to the ABC. The cuts announced by the ABC board last Wednesday to its radio and television news and current affairs services are another indication of the parlous state of the national broadcaster. They come on top of four years of cuts to program production, the gutting of Radio Australia and the downscaling of radio and support services after the Howard government's 1996 decision to cut the ABC's base funding. These cuts were administered in spite of the coalition's 1996 election commitment that funding to the ABC and SBS would be maintained in real terms. I have to concede that, when Labor was in office, we also let the ABC wither on the vine with a cumulative reduction to ABC base funding in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In spite of this, the ABC has maintained services and built its audiences in radio and television to record levels of 15 per cent in television and 21 per cent in radio. TV, unfortunately, is now dependent on bought-in, off-the-shelf programs from the BBC and other broadcasters to maintain the viability of its schedule. The ABC's Internet services are a great success story, costing around $3 million a year and scoring substantial accesses or hits every day. Early this year the ABC asked the government for $194 million over three years to take the national broadcaster into digital transmission. It wanted to turn its 48 regional radio offices into TV outlets as well to service rural and regional Australia. Comparatively inexpensive digicameras and desktop digital editing equipment could make this enhancement to regional services very cost effective, but the Howard cabinet rejected the ABC's plans out of hand out of what appears to be malice and hostility towards the national broadcaster rather than out of any consideration for reversing the sense of alienation many rural and regional constituents feel. Talk about shortsightedness! I will be urging my party to adopt the ABC's regional plans as part of our public broadcasting policy to be taken to the next election. The new technology gives us a great opportunity to better serve the Australian public with independent news, news analysis and current affairs. We all have our problems with journalists asking difficult questions of us from time to time. I have just watched the ABC's FourCorners program tonight caning the ALP in Queensland. Without knowing anything about the matters raised in the program, I can say that clearly the ABC is doing the job we all expect of it. Do we want a robust democracy and an accountable parliament and government? Of course we do. The Howard government has been on a campaign to marginalise and even destroy the ABC. That must not be allowed to happen.2166322:42:0021663Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—Over recent weeks Australian animals have been featured and been given worldwide status, especially of course during the Olympics and the Paralympics—Fatso the Wombat has achieved an almost star like quality—but tonight I want to tell the House about a very special animal called Giddy Goanna. I was introduced to Giddy Goanna by my colleague the member for Groom. I want to commend the member for Groom for his effort in promoting Giddy Goanna because, Mr Speaker, although Giddy has not achieved the status of Fatso the Wombat yet, I can assure you that Giddy is fast under way to overtaking any other Australian animal and what those animals represent, because Giddy Goanna is the champion of children's safety. The Giddy Goanna program was launched in southern Queensland in 1995. The Giddy Goanna Ltd organisation has produced four books. The latest of these, entitled Giddy Goanna: bikes, buses and roads, was actually launched down in Craigieburn in my electorate by the famous racing car driver Peter Brock. The hallmark of this program of children's safety is actually teaching children and their parents and grandparents the fundamentals of safety through fun. The books are just a sheer delight to read and they have all sorts of activities and different posters.Up until this latest book, Giddy had concentrated on the safety of children in rural areas. But Giddy—who, as I said, is about to branch out and have international stardom—is now providing fun and research material for parents, grandparents and those interested in the academic pursuit of children's safety in both urban and rural areas. It is a sobering thought that 138 children are killed in accidents on our roads each year, and this tragic figure does not include all of those who are injured or traumatised in road accidents. As I said, it is a very sobering figure.The hallmark of the Giddy Goanna children's safety program is providing very commonsense information for children and their parents but doing it in a fun way. The Giddy Goanna association will launch a new book each year, with all of the support material that goes with the book. The Giddy Goanna program is run by a non-profit organisation which depends on sponsorship. I am very pleased to say that the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care acts as a sponsor for the Giddy Goanna program, as do Yamaha and Bridgestone. The books of Giddy Goanna are kept at the very reasonable price of $6.95. They are available through newsagents right throughout the country, so they are available to as many people as possible. I want to pay tribute to Pam Brown, the author of the program, and also to Dr Peter Watson, who was one of the founders of the program but who was himself tragically killed in a road accident. His parents, Graham and Marie Watson, flew down from Murgon in Queensland to attend the launch of the latest Giddy book because that book was dedicated to their son Peter. There are many people who play an important role in this children's safety program and none more so than Pam Brown, the author, who has put such a fantastic effort into providing all of the resource materials and who has created such a fun way for children to be safer on our roads. (Time expired)2166422:47:0021664Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I would like to honour tonight the achievements of many of the fine schools on Brisbane's south side and many of their high achieving students. Balmoral State High School, under the leadership of the new principal, Noel Humphrys, and deputies, Gail Bruce and Allan Kuskie, has made great achievements in the year 2000, and I congratulate all those students who have won academic, sporting and music awards.Under Principal Murray Kay, Mansfield State High School has developed a first-class reputation across Brisbane's south side. Mansfield held its presentation night on Wednesday, 11 October. Major award winners included: Senior Dux, David Anthony; Junior Dux, Anita Stockwell; Foreign Language Student of the Year, Erin Rayment; Information Technology Student of the Year, Bruce Shoobridge; and Music Student of the Year, Gemma Dolan. The major service award, the J.T. Stoodley Award, was presented to Timothy Gallard. The leadership awards were won by Erin Rayment and Stuart Layt. Student of the Year was Erin Rayment, and major sporting awardees included Jodie Eyre, Rebecca Huth, Sarah Illing and Jacqueline Henricks. Mansfield has had a highly successful year in the year 2000 with its concert band winning the A-grade competition at the Queensland music festival. Mansfield is indeed a great school.San Sisto College, under Principal Berenice McClellan, celebrated its awards night on 17 October 2000. Major awardees included: Catriona Gordon, the year 2000 Prima Veritas; Rebecca Melbourne, the 1999 Dux of the College; Kathleen Gleeson, the winner of the 2000 Caltex Award; Brooke Beauchamp, the Junior Sportswoman of the Year; Tara Fielding, the Senior Sportswoman of the Year; Crystal Brouwers, an outstanding achiever in sport; Jasmine Quick, also an outstanding achiever in sport; and Sarah Philips, who won the Amy Franklin Memorial Award for spirit in sport. Amy Franklin succumbed to cystic fibrosis earlier this year—a young girl who was held in high regard by those in the school and who was a total inspiration to her family and to the entire school.Camp Hill State High School is a fine school in my electorate in the southern suburbs of Brisbane. Under Acting Principal Marilyn Davies, it also held its speech night recently, on 24 October. Anne Bright was Dux of School. She also studied a university subject while completing her year 12 at school. Runner-up dux were Quinton Cooper and Jeffrey Lee. The Samuel Hosking Memorial Award for Leadership was awarded to: Shonele Lowe, Benjamin Drozdovskii, Jessica Chambers, Anne Bright and Kallan Cathew. The Technology Award winner was John Muir, and the Caltex All Rounder was Naomi Russell. Student of the Year was Anne Bright, and the Murray Wickman Senior Science Award was given to Jeffrey Lee. The Mulcahy Family Award was won by Jessica Chambers and Grant Morrison, while the David Bell Memorial History Essay Prize was awarded to Anne Bright. The LOTE award for languages other than English went to Joanne Grant. The Junior Sportsman of the Year was Adam Crooks, while the Junior Sportswoman of the Year was Jacki Little. Sportsman of the Year was Andrew Daniels, while Sportswoman of the Year was Danielle Thompson. Recognition for contributions to year 8 sports went to Jasmine Lewis and Nicholas Laingham. I extend congratulations to all these achievers at this very fine school. The Cavendish Road State High School in Brisbane celebrated its 49th annual awards night on 25 October. This school recently became the beneficiary of a $5 million-plus grant from the Beattie state Labor government—a grant which will lead to a huge refurbishment of that school in terms of its physical infrastructure in the coming year— and I congratulate the state Labor government for having done this. Under the excellent leadership of Principal Allan Sampson and deputies Wendy Amy and Judy Murphy, we have seen an excellent combination of academic, cultural and sporting programs implemented at the school during the year 2000. Major prize winners at the most recent awards night included: 1999 Dux of the School Tim Willett; Kimberley Dalziel and Ryan Wilson for the Leadership Award; Robert Barton, Jenny Chu and Kym Ramsay, winners of the Citizenship Award; Ryan Wilson for the Caltex Best All-Rounder Award; Kimberley Dalziel for the Seniors Achievement Award; Robert Barton for instrumental excellence; Robert Barton, Alexander Gill, Nicholas Waterman and Jordan Young for the most outstanding achievements in woodwind, strings, brass and percussion respectively; and Kym Dyball, who gained the Instrumental Support Group Encouragement Award. The Instrumental Music 5-Year Award went to Robert Barton, Emma Duncanson, Steven Sibley and Nicholas Waterman, while the LOTE award for languages other than English went to Tanya Shibasaki. All these students are worthy of commendation and are to be congratulated for their achievements. In the area of sport, Scott Cross, Amelia Covey, Amanda Stephens, Melissa Topp, Danny Flaskas, Ben Quarton, Darlo Vlodsic, William Heagney, Emma Meen and Danice Tardiani have all made remarkable achievements on behalf of Cavendish Road in the field of competitive sport, and they deserve to be congratulated.2166522:52:0021665Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I wish to draw the House's attention tonight to the important work undertaken with street kids by the Open Family organisation. `Son' and `Vincent' are street workers with Open Family and they work with street kids in Cabramatta. These are the kind of kids who have fallen through the cracks of the social security net. I caught the train from Lindfield out to Cabramatta the week before last late one afternoon. In the 90 minutes it takes, you see a lot of Sydney and its people, and not all of it is good. As the train approached Cabramatta station, there were several kids around me on their mobile phones. The dealers who a year ago when I visited would descend like plovers now seem to prefer phone contact. They have retreated from brazen openness to premises from which their deadly trade, usually in heroin but not exclusively, is conducted. But it is fairly obvious as we approach the station that business is still good.In the short walk that it takes to go from the station to Open Family's office, it is obvious that Vincent has great rapport with the kids who are milling about on footpaths, and quite a few are tucked into the alleyways off the main drag. He obviously knows them and they obviously know him and like to see him. He asks the kids things like `Did you go to school today? Have you got somewhere to sleep? Do you need some help?' At one point, he stops to light a cigarette, but it is obvious that the real reason is that he is worried about a kid he has seen, and for obvious reasons I leave my anti-smoking lecture in my back pocket.When we arrive at the Open Family office, which is in a small shopping arcade, there is a Centrelink officer who is putting away his laptop. In fact, I asked him why he was there, and he said, `To get some kids, you have to see them in an environment that they trust, and they trust this place.' Before we talk, I ask whether I can use the toilet in the Open Family facilities. Son, one of the street workers, says with some hesitation that I might not want to because, as he says, `There's a bit of blood.' Blood does not particularly worry me—I have seen a fair bit in my time—but he is right; there is a young boy in the far corner of the toilet with a bloodied face. He is dishevelled, he has extremely long hair and his clothes are very dirty. He probably was not more than 17 but he actually looked quite a bit older. This kid had literally scratched the skin right off his face. He was refusing to see a doctor but he would talk to Open Family. This kid has hepatitis C, he is using drugs, he had nowhere to go and probably had a drug induced psychosis. There is a stimulant on the streets called `ice' which produces this sort of effect, and it may well have been that. Eventually, this boy staggers out into the mall and a security guard arrives within a minute. As we leave to walk the streets of Cabramatta, I suppose Vincent asks the guard to let this kid sit there for a while and says, `I'll be back for him; I know he's there.' We wander through car parks and alleyways of Cabramatta. We see where the kids sleep. We also see the toilets where, for 50c, they can shoot up in privacy. Some sit on milk crates in a heroin induced stupor. At one point Vincent says, `Does anyone want their photo taken with Dr Nelson?' and there is no shortage of volunteers, despite the things being said about politicians. Son asked me why I would bother to go out and see them. I must say I thought about it and I said, `Well, you've only got one life and one chance to make a difference, and there are many people who want to help them.' The photos are taken before the kids drift off back into the night. It is interesting that when I caught the train back from Cabramatta there were three girls on the platform in Cabramatta. They seemed in reasonably good nick. They got off at Central and changed and got on my train to go back up to the North Shore, and they got off at the Roseville station, which is right in the middle of some of the most affluent areas you will see in Sydney. I do not think they had been on a school excursion.For those Australians who want to contribute to life's solutions, I commend you to support Open Family. Phone 1800 644 844. These people deserve medals, but in the meantime money will suffice. Anything you can do to support this organisation and the work that it does will go a long way. A disproportionately large number of these kids actually come from very middle-class families.2166622:57:0021666Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I would like to take this opportunity to urge colleagues to take particular care to advise their constituents against scams in general, particularly telemarketing ones, and a particular scam being touted in my electorate at the moment by a mob called Florida Direct. Florida Direct is a high-powered pitch, out of St Petersburg, Florida, to sell holiday packages to Florida with so-called extra stopover options. Most of the pitch I have been alerted to is to seniors. In my electorate, several have been advised that they have won a holiday in some bogus competition or can get a cheap package. Slick talk, pressing time lines for payments—implied in Aussie dollars, by the way, but collected in American—and insistence on immediate disclosure of credit card details make up the high-pressure hype and selling surrounding the Florida Direct scheme. Payments are immediately taken from the credit facilities but little to no paperwork follows. At minimum, there should be sunset clauses invoked in such processes and confirmation documentation sent to clients before funds are drawn. Not surprisingly, Florida Direct has come under scrutiny in the United Kingdom in the BBC's Weekend Watchdog program. Florida Direct appears lightning quick to draw on clients' funds but very slow to return funds. I wonder why. I also wonder why Florida Direct's so-called customer service department number was dead when I called for information, both earlier today and most recently at 10.25 tonight.I urge members to use their electorate communications to warn their constituents about scams and to be aware of the high-pressure sales approaches by the likes of Florida Direct. What people are told, expect and finally receive are often very different things, and this can prove expensive. These schemes exploit the vulnerable and play on people's susceptibility to high-pressure sales via telemarketing. Indeed, the plethora of high-pressure schemes is a national concern as thousands of complaints are registered over telemarketing schemes. It is all right to declare buyer beware, but the situation is reaching saturation point nationally and really does deserve ACCC investigation. Print, telephone and now the Internet merely act as multiple points for exploitation. Clearly, people need to be educated about such schemes, and I commend the New South Wales government and the Commonwealth for issuing the scam booklet. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:0021667House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices21667The following notice was given:9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne to move—That this House:(1) expresses its dismay at the ongoing violence and incitement to violence in the Middle East and calls on both sides to immediately stop all violent acts and for the restoration of calm to the region;(2) takes note of the far-reaching and courageous proposals made by Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, at Camp David and its disappointment that this historic opportunity was not successfully seized by all parties to the peace process;(3) calls on all partners to resume negotiations without the threat of violence and without the premature announcement of unilateral declarations;(4) expresses its grief for the innocent lives lost on both sides and condemns the unacceptable inclusion of children in violent activities on the front line and expresses the hope that violence will be stopped in accordance with the Sharm el-Sheik agreement;(5) hopes that the conflict will be resolved in the framework of agreement and compromise;(6) calls on the leadership of the Israeli and Palestinian people to restore trust and confidence in order to pave the way for the resumption of peace negotiations;(7) calls on all countries surrounding the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian territories to ensure their sovereign territory not be used to promote aggression into an already turbulent area; and(8) believes that peaceful coexistence is the only option for both Israelis and Palestinians now and into the future.Answers to Questions in Writing21668The following answers to questions were circulated:21668(Question No. 1477)147721668McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 9 May 2000: (1) Is the Minister able to say what literacy and remedial education programs operate in the Northern Territory, including those offering assistance to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people. (2) Where does each program operate. (3) What are the particular services provided by each of the programs. (4) Who operates the programs. (5) What proportion of clients of each of the programs identifies as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. (6) How many (a) full-time, (b) part-time and (c) casual staff are employed in each of the programs, and of the total staff, how many identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. (7) How many (a) full-time, (b) part-time and (c) casual staff are employed in the programs in areas related to the correctional services and justice, and of the total staff, how many identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. (8) What is the total allocation of financial resources provided for the programs by the (a) Commonwealth and (b) Northern Territory. (9) What is the total allocation of financial resources provided for the programs in areas related to the correctional services and justice by the (a) Commonwealth and (b) Northern Territory. (10) What is the total per capita allocation of financial resources provided for the programs by the (a) Commonwealth and (b) Northern Territory. (11) What is the total per capita allocation of financial resources provided for the programs in areas related to the correctional services and justice by the (a) Commonwealth and (b) Northern Territory. (12) What proportion of total expenditure by the Commonwealth is the total allocation of financial resources provided for the programs in areas related to the correctional services and justice by the Commonwealth. (13) What proportion of total expenditure by the Northern Territory is the total allocation of financial resources provided for the programs in areas related to the correctional services and justice by the Northern Territory.21668Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (7) The administration of schools, including the provision of literacy and remedial education, is the responsibility of the State and Territory education departments and non-government education authorities, not the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth's indigenous education programs which can assist the literacy and remedial learning outcomes for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people are the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program (IESIP) and the Indigenous Education Direct Assistance (IEDA) Program. These programs provide supplementary assistance for the education of indigenous students for literacy and remedial education not just for literacy and remedial assistance. Under IESIP, recipients determine how these funds are best used to achieve the mutually agreed targets specified in their individual agreements with the Commonwealth. Under IEDA, literacy and remedial education assistance can be provided to students through the Aboriginal Tutorial Assistance Scheme (ATAS), an element of the IEDA Program. This is generally provided independently, outside of school hours. The Commonwealth is working with the States and Territories to ensure that all children achieve an acceptable standard of literacy and numeracy skills. Under the Literacy and Numeracy Program the Commonwealth will provide approximately $200 million for literacy and numeracy for disadvantaged school students in 2000. State and Territory Government and non-government education authorities are responsible for the detailed administration of this program in their systems and schools. Literacy and remedial education is also a priority under the majority of other Commonwealth Schools Programs. (See tables below) (a) The Commonwealth does not require education authorities to provide this information.(8) (a)Funding table for Non-Government Schools in the Northern Territory for the year 2000 ($000's)General Recurrent Grants (including STEA)21,649Capital689Literacy643Languages60Special Learning Needs - Special Education597 - ESL New Arrivals4 - Country Areas99TOTAL23,740Joint Funding for NT#Special Learning Needs177National Pool Targeted Component*Special Learning Needs2,063Joint ComponentsLiteracy8,049Languages6,351Special Learning Needs2,124TOTAL16,524Note: Figures are legislated allocations where available or based on final 1999 expenditure or enrolments.All figures are in initial 2000 prices# The Special Leaning needs amount is a pool available to NT and Non-Government Schools* The Special Learning Needs amount is a national pool available to all States - non-government sector only.The Literacy and Languages and Special Learning Needs Joint Component amounts are available to all States and both sectors. Funding table for Government Schools in the Northern Territory for the year 2000 ($000's)General Recurrent Grants13,887Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment-Net General Recurrent Grants13,887Capital2,803Literacy2,721Languages280Special Learning Needs - Special Education940 - ESL New Arrivals424 - Country Areas814TOTAL21,870Joint Funding for NT#Special Learning Needs177Joint Components*Literacy8,049Languages6,351Special Learning Needs2,124TOTAL16,524Note: Figures are legislated allocations where available or based on final 1999 expenditure or enrolments. All figures are in Initial 2000 prices.# The Special Leaning needs amount is a pool available to NT Government and Non-Government Schools* Joint Component amounts are available to all States and both sectors.2000 IESIP AllocationsRecurrent$29.309mProject/Capital$ 0.895mEnglish as a SecondLanguage-Indigenous Language Speaking Students$ 1.949m Total$32.153m ATAS - The allocation for the 1999/2000 financial year for ATAS for Northern Territory is $2.38 million. This program is funded solely by the Commonwealth. (b) The Commonwealth is unable to determine the precise level of funding for Indigenous Education Programs originating from Northern Territory Government sources. (9) to (13) Provision of educational services within correctional facilities is not relevant to this portfolio. 21671(Question No. 1481)148121671McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 9 May 2000: (1) Is he able to say what literacy and remedial education programs operate in Western Australia, including those offering assistance to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people. (2) Where does each program operate. (3) What are the particular services provided by each of the programs. (4) Who operates the programs. (5) What proportion of clients of each of the programs identifies as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. (6) How many (a) full-time, (b) part-time and (c) casual staff are employed in each of the programs, and of the total staff, how many identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. (7) How many (a) full-time, (b) part-time and (c) casual staff are employed in the programs in areas related to the correctional services and justice, and of the total staff, how many identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. (8) What is the total allocation of financial resources provided for the programs by (a) the Commonwealth and (b) Western Australia. (9) What is the total allocation of financial resources provided for the programs in areas related to the correctional services and justice by (a) the Commonwealth and (b) Western Australia. (10) What is the total per capita allocation of financial resources provided for the programs by (a) the Commonwealth and (b) Western Australia. (11) What is the total per capita allocation of financial resources provided for the programs in areas related to the correctional services and justice by (a) the Commonwealth and (b) Western Australia. (12) What proportion of total expenditure by the Commonwealth is the total allocation of financial resources provided for the programs in areas related to the correctional services and justice by the Commonwealth. (13) What proportion of total expenditure by Western Australia is the total allocation of financial resources provided for the programs in areas related to the correctional services and justice by the Western Australia.21671Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The administration of schools, including the provision of literacy and remedial education, is the responsibility of the State and Territory education departments and non-government education authorities, not the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth's indigenous education programs which can assist the literacy and remedial learning outcomes for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people are the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program (IESIP) and the Indigenous Education Direct Assistance (IEDA) Program. These programs provide supplementary assistance for the education of indigenous students for literacy and remedial education not just for literacy and remedial assistance. Under IESIP, recipients determine how these funds are best used to achieve the mutually agreed targets specified in their individual agreements with the Commonwealth. Under IEDA, literacy and remedial education assistance can be provided to students through the Aboriginal Tutorial Assistance Scheme (ATAS), an element of the IEDA program. This is generally provided independently, outside of school hours. The Commonwealth is working with the States and Territories to ensure that all children achieve an acceptable standard of literacy and numeracy skills. Under the Literacy and Numeracy Program the Commonwealth will provide approximately $200 million for literacy and numeracy for disadvantaged school students in 2000. State and Territory Government and non-government education authorities are responsible for the detailed administration of this program in their systems and schools. Literacy and remedial education is also a priority under the majority of other Commonwealth Schools Programs. (See tables below) (2) to (7) The Commonwealth does not require education authorities to provide this information.(8) (a)Funding table for Non-Government Schools in Western Australia for the year 2000 ($000's).General Recurrent Grants (including STEA)238,503Capital8,098Literacy4,221Languages931Special Learning Needs - Special Education4,556 - ESL New Arrivals633 - Country Areas330TOTAL257,272Joint Funding for WA#Special Learning Needs532National Pool Targeted Component*Special Learning Needs2,063Joint ComponentsLiteracy8,049Languages6,351Special Learning Needs2,124TOTAL16,524NOTE: Figures are legislated allocations where available or based on final 1999 expenditure or enrolments.All figures are in initial 2000 prices# The Special Learning needs amount is a pool available to WA Government and Non-Government Schools* The Special Learning Needs amount is a national pool available to all States - non-government sector only.The Literacy and Languages and Special Learning Needs Joint Component amounts are available to all States and both sectors. Funding table for Government Schools in Western Australia for the year 2000 ($000's)General Recurrent Grants120,097Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment(3,480)Net General Recurrent Grants116,618Capital22,250Literacy11,482Languages2,395Special Learning Needs - Special Education5,588 - ESL New Arrivals2,583 - Country Areas2,487TOTAL163,403Joint Funding for WA#Special Learning Needs532Joint Components*Literacy8,049Languages6,351Special Learning Needs2,124TOTAL16,524Note: Figures are legislated allocations where available or based on final 1999 expenditure or enrolments. All figures are in Initial 2000 prices.# The Special Leaning needs amount is a pool available to WA Government and Non-Government Schools* Joint Component amounts available to all States and both sectors2000 IESIP AllocationsRecurrent$24,260,200Project/Capital$741,800English as a SecondLanguage-IndigenousLanguage Speaking Students$2,420,000Total27,422,000The allocation for the 1999/2000 financial year for Western Australia for ATAS is $5.06 million. This program is funded solely by the Commonwealth. (b) The allocation of financial resources by Western Australia is not available. (9) to (13) Provision of educational services within correctional facilities is not relevant to this portfolio.21673(Question No. 1756)175621673McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 14 August 2000: (1) Will a wife's Partner Service Pension be included as assessable income under Part B of the Family Tax Benefit package. (2) Will this mean that a family which receives DVA benefits for war service of $509 per week will be about $44 per week worse off. (3) What arrangements will he put in place to remedy that situation. (4) Will those arrangements restore the status quo or will they include an additional sum to compensate ex-servicemen and their partners for the effects of the GST. (5) Will any compensation be permanent rather than just transitional during the period of the GST implementation.21674Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is: (1) Yes. (2) No. The main payments for couples that were replaced by Family Tax Benefit Part B were Basic Parenting Payment and the with-child rate of the Dependent Spouse Rebate, and these payments previously included a wife's Partner Service Pension as income. Families who have received their correct entitlements will not receive less assistance due to the treatment of Partner Service Pension as income. (3), (4) and (5) As families will not be worse off due to including a wife's Partner Service Pension as income for Family Tax Benefit Part B, no additional arrangements are needed.21674(Question No. 1764)176421674Hatton, Michael, MPMr HattonLN6BlaxlandALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, 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.21674Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is: (1) In June 2000, the chief executives of all agencies within my portfolio were asked to provide me with a written confirmation that they would be able to comply with The New Tax System from 1 July 2000. I received such assurances from each agency. (2) Work to ensure that the Department and Portfolio agencies are fully compliant with The New Tax System has been completed and included: . examining all business processes to determine where GST is payable . changing administrative and accounting procedures to accommodate GST . obtaining an Australian Business Number and GST registration . changing all financial systems so that tax data can be recorded and monthly returns submitted to the Australian Taxation Office commencing 21 August 2000 . communicating with clients, including grant recipients and suppliers, about the changes . training staff Progress by the Department and Portfolio agencies has been regularly monitored by the Department of Finance and Administration's GST Implementation Unit and was assessed as satisfactory at all stages. (3) The implementation and ongoing management of tax reform by agencies is the responsibility of their respective chief executive officers or boards of management (as applicable). 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 agencies in this portfolio in real terms.21675(Question No. 1769)176921675Hatton, Michael, MPMr HattonLN6BlaxlandALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, 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.21675Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is: (1) In June 2000, the chief executives of all agencies within my portfolio were asked to provide me with written confirmation that they would be able to comply with The New Tax System from 1 July 2000. I received such assurances from each agency. (2) My department and agencies were assisted with their preparations for The New Tax System by the GST Implementation Unit, in the Department of Finance and Administration (DOFA). The Unit coordinated the provision of financial, taxation and business management advice to enable the department and agencies to adjust their business to operate in the new tax environment. As part of this role, the Unit organised a GST manual and two series of associated seminars for agencies; provided advice and information to agencies through specialist officers in the Unit; arranged for an out-sourced helpdesk; gave presentations on a range of issues; maintained a GST website; issued frequent news sheets; established a panel of accredited consultants; coordinated a log of issues that needed to be referred to the ATO; and worked with agencies and systems suppliers to ensure that agencies' systems needs would be met. The department undertook the following actions to ensure that it was GST-ready by 1 July 2000:· Engaged a recognised firm of experts to conduct a scoping study and provide ongoing specialist tax advice in relation to the implementation of A New Tax System (ANTS) from October 1999;· created teams to undertake implementation of ANTS. A coordinating NTS Project Office was established, supported by specialist teams in Communications, Contracts, and Systems. These teams reported to the senior steering committee, the NTS Reference Group;· registered for an Australian Business Number and the GST on 5 January 2000 (the department's ABN is 40 376 417 416);· closely liaised with the GST Implementation Unit in DOFA to ensure all requirements were fully understood and implemented;· briefed and trained staff, with specialist training provided in areas of special needs, such as contracts and pricing. In addition, the department ensured that up-to-date information was always available to staff;· analysed departmental transactions to determine the likely cash flow position of the department under the tax reform;· updated and enhanced as appropriate, policies, systems, business rules and procedures;· reviewed all contracts, and made amendments where required;· ensured compliance with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) requirements and government policies on pricing;· communicated departmental requirements to suppliers, to ensure that savings were passed on; · assisted, when required, portfolio agencies in the implementation of ANTS; and· complied with the strategy adopted by the DOFA GST Implementation Unit in implementing ANTS changes within the department. The preparations conducted within the department included those undertaken on behalf of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal (DFRT) and the Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA) to ensure that they were GST-ready by 1 July 2000. To ensure that the Australian Industrial Registry (AIR) was prepared for the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax on 1 July 2000, the AIR prepared and worked to an implementation plan; undertook a review of the pricing of goods for sale; contacted suppliers; examined contractual obligations; trained key staff; enhanced business systems and completed the requirements for the registration for an Australian Business Number and for the Goods and Services Tax. Comcare undertook a number of activities to ensure compliance with the new system, including a comprehensive project plan; a risk management strategy; a communication strategy; and three compliance audits throughout the process. The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA) ensured that it was GST ready by 1 July 2000 by having staff work closely with the department's NTS project team and DOFA's GST implementation Unit. Both these units provided financial, taxation and business management advice. Further, staff attended training sessions and seminars; reviewed the pricing of goods for sale; contacted suppliers; and examined contractual arrangements. The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC) undertook a number of activities to ensure compliance with GST requirements from 1 July 2000. These activities included project planning and progress reporting by a Steering Committee with advice from a recognised firm of experts; risk management planning; a communications and training strategy; and compliance audits conducted at three intervals throughout the process. (3) The implementation and ongoing management of tax reform by agencies is the responsibility of their respective chief executive officers or boards of management (as applicable). 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 agencies in this portfolio in real terms.21676(Question No. 1776)177621676Hatton, Michael, MPMr HattonLN6BlaxlandALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, 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.21676Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is: (1) In June 2000, the chief executives of all agencies within my portfolio were asked to provide me with written confirmation that they would be able to comply with The New Tax System from 1 July 2000. I received such assurances from each agency. (2) Significant effort was made by all agencies within my portfolio to prepare for the GST. This effort was closely monitored by the Department of Finance and Administration. The activities undertaken by my agencies included the following: . Registering for Australian Business Numbers and the GST . Notifying suppliers of relevant issues relating to The New Tax System . Addressing critical transition issues, particularly in relation to contracts . Updating accounting systems and processes . Reviewing record keeping requirements to ensure they comply with GST requirements . Analysing the effect of GST on cash flows and pricing and making price changes in accordance with the agency pricing guidelines and the ACCC guidelines . Conducting training for staff (3) The implementation and ongoing management of tax reform by agencies is the responsibility of their respective chief executive officers or boards of management (as applicable). 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 agencies in this portfolio in real terms.21677(Question No. 1835)183521677Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 16 August 2000: In 1999-2000 in the Minister's Department, what was the (a) average salary paid in each Australian Public Servant salary band and (b) average staffing level (average number of employees) for each band?21677Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is:Department of Industry, Science and Resources *LevelAverageAverageSalaryNumber of Staff(a)(b)APS 1 & Equivalent$26,16159APS 2 & Equivalent$30,372128APS 3 & Equivalent$34,377263APS 4 & Equivalent$37,625193APS 5 & Equivalent$41,791329APS 6 & Equivalent$47,783714Executive Level 1 & Equivalent$59,421575Executive Level 2 & Equivalent$72,423389Principal Research Scientist$85,34726Senior Executive Band 1$88,63362Senior Executive Band 2$108,28122Senior Executive Band 3$130,7247Trainee$30,55629*includes the Department of Industry, Science and Resources; the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories (AGAL); the Australian Surveying & Land Information Group (AUSLIG); the Australian Geological Survey Organisation (AGSO); and IP Australia21677(Question No. 1898)189821677Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 31 August 2000: Further to his announcement of 24 August 2000, what funding has been allocated in (a) 2000-01, (b) 2001-02, (c) 2002-03, and (d) 2003-04 for (i) subsidies to employers of reservists and self-employed reservists, (ii) accreditation of reserve training, (iii) reserve survey, (iv) reserve swipe card technology, and (v) communications and public awareness strategies.21677Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is: (a) The funding allocated in 2000-01 is: (i) $8.9 million (ii) $4.8 million (iii) $1.5 million (iv) $1.0 million (v) $2.6 million (b), (c) and (d) 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04 funding allocations will be determined within the normal Defence Budget Submission process.21678(Question No. 1904)190421678Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 31 August 2000: (1) Further to my question No. 790 (Hansard, 12 October 1999, page 11407) how many persons received the Disability Support Pension (DSP) in 1999-2000. (2) What was the total cost of the DSP in 1999-2000. (3) How many DSP recipients have declared in ABS employment surveys that they are seeking work.21678Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is: (1) As at June 2000, 602,393 customers were in receipt of DSP. (2) The total cost of DSP for 1999-2000 was $5.25 billion. (3) Respondents to the ABS labour force survey are not asked whether they are in receipt of the DSP. However, the sample of respondents in the 1998 ABS Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers was asked questions about receipt of the DSP and employment. Of those respondents who said they received the DSP, 2.4% reported that they were unemployed and seeking work. This figure is subject to sampling variability. It should also be noted that about 8 per cent of DSP recipients have earned income.21678(Question No. 1908)190821678Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 31 August 2000: (1) Is he aware of a joint project between NASA and the CSIRO involving the use of aerial radar imaging to reveal aspects of the earth's geological structure. (2) Is this a government sponsored project; if so, (a) can he say how and by whom the project was initiated and (b) what are the arrangements for the distribution of the project's intellectual property rights between the project partners.21678Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions: (1) Yes. NASA, CSIRO and the University of New South Wales are collaborating in the Pacific Rim airborne data collection mission. It is broader in scope than “revealing aspects of the earth's geological structure”. The mission will acquire data over eighteen countries in the region, and is a multiparameter radar and multispectral science and technology demonstrator for each of the key scientific research areas of forestry and vegetation, agriculture, coastal analysis, geology and tectonic processes, interferometry, disaster management, and urban and regional development. (2) No. CSIRO and the University of New South Wales are coordinating the scientific mission on a full cost-recovery basis. (a) The mission was initiated as an agency-to-agency invitation from NASA to CSIRO and, through CSIRO, to the University of New South Wales. (b) This is a scientific collaboration and technology demonstration activity. Investigators have exclusive access to the data for their sites for a period of one year. Following that, investigators are expected to follow NASA standard policy of allowing the data to be made available, if requested, to all researchers for the cost of reproduction. There is no requirement on individual researchers to make available any intellectual property resulting from their analysis, techniques, processes or software development although, as a technology demonstrator, investigators are encouraged to publish the results in appropriate journals or other established channels as soon as practicable. CSIRO and the University of New South Wales are expected to host at least one workshop associated with the project.21679(Question No. 1914)191421679Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 4 September 2000: Has agreement been reached between the Commonwealth and the States regarding the introduction of literacy and numeracy testing and benchmarking in years 7 and 9; if so, what progress has been made with the introduction of this program.21679Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is: At the March 2000 meeting of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), Council: . approved the literacy and numeracy benchmarks and professional elaborations for Year 7 and noted the supplementary work samples; . agreed that systems should report nationally comparable Year 7 data against the literacy and numeracy benchmarks in 2002 based on 2001 data, provided the data available is recognised as being comparable by an objective process involving the States, Territories and the Commonwealth; . agreed that systems should continue to progress towards universal assessment of Year 7 students against the literacy and numeracy benchmarks. At the April 1999 meeting of MCEETYA, Council agreed that development of benchmarks for years 9/10 should be postponed pending finalisation of Australia's common and agreed goals for schooling in the twenty-first century and availability of more information from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) project which will survey reading, mathematics and science skills of 15 year olds in 2000. Further information is expected to be available from October 2001.21679(Question No. 1919)191921679Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 4 September 2000: For each Australian university: (a) what proportion of academic staff hold PhD qualifications; and (b) what proportion of graduates secure full-time employment within a (i) three month, (ii) six month, and (iii) 12 month period and (c) what is the average starting salary for graduates moving into full-time employment.21679Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is: (a) Data on the qualifications of academic staff relate to 1996, the latest period for which data are available, and were derived from the Commonwealth Universities Yearbook. This information was published in the Department's publication, The characteristics and performance of higher education institutions, 1998. (b) and (c) Each year the Graduate Careers Council of Australia conducts the Graduate Destination Survey which asks graduates about their destinations and satisfaction with their courses some four months after they have completed their courses. This is the only source of information that provides reliable information on graduate destinations by institution on a national basis. The survey includes information on the employment destinations and salaries of graduates. A table providing detailed answers to (a), (b) and (c) is attached. Table 1 : Qualifications of Academic Staff and Graduate Full-time Employment and Salaries by Institution 1996 proportion of academic staff holding PhD qualifications1999 proportion of graduates employedfull time1999 Average graduate starting salary ($)AFTVRSnananaAvondalena80naCharles Sturt Uni287629285Macquarie Uni647631621NIDAnananaSouthern Cross Uni 297130246Uni of New England 637330949Uni of Newcastle 487131023Uni of NSW 618433223Uni of Sydney588332216Uni of Tech Sydney 397933575Uni of Western Sydney317030060Uni of Wollongong649232042Deakin Uni 386929020La Trobe Uni 577330272Marcus OldhamnananaMonash Uni 538430610RMIT 308431379Swinburne Uni of Technology307230894Uni of Ballarat227530753Uni of Melbourne 618131720Victorian Uni of Technology256130523Central QLD Uni338030753Griffith Uni 507229152James Cook Uni of North Qld597631334QLD Uni of Tech378330705Uni of QLD 738832163Uni of Southern QLD307629432Curtin Uni of Tech 397230517Edith Cowan Uni306827327Murdoch Uni677328825Uni of Western Aust748131075Flinders Uni 557030243Uni of Adelaide66nanaUni of SA227029245Austn Maritime College nananaUni of Tasmania517730945Batchelor CollegenananaNT Uni 237929499ADFAnananaANU597131247Uni of CanberranananaAustn Catholic Uni 288631309Total507730935Sources : DETYA (1998), The Characteristics and Performance of Higher Education Institutions, Graduate Careers Council of Australia (1999), Graduate Destination Survey.na = not available21681(Question No. 1920)192021681Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 4 September 2000: (1) What progress has the Government made with the implementation of a Learning Circles program. (2) What delays were experienced with the implementation of the program dealing with the Australian Republic and what were the reasons.21681Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is: (1) Four learning circle kits are being prepared for the adult and community education sector under the Discovering Democracy program of civics and citizenship education. The Governance of Australia, The Three Spheres of Government, The Australian Nation and Citizens and Public Life. These kits are now almost ready for publication. (2) Constitutional issues such as the republic are covered in the learning circle kit called The Governance of Australia. Finalisation of this kit was delayed because of the need to include coverage of the outcomes of the November 1999 referendum on the republic and because of the priority given to the major distributions of Discovering Democracy materials to schools in November 1999 and June 2000.21681(Question No. 1956)195621681Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 7 September 2000:Will the Minister bring up to date the information provided in his answer to question No. 835 (Hansard, 23 September 1999, page 10487), concerning the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.21681McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is:The latest information from UNESCO, updated to 1 December 1999, shows the following 91 states are parties to the 1970 Convention—this information is available on the Internet at www.unesco.org/culture/laws/1970/html_eng: STATESDate of DepositDate of Entry into ForceRatification (R)Acceptance (Ac)Accession (A)Succession (S)ALGERIA24.06.1974 (R) 24.09.1974ANGOLA07.11.1991 (R)07.02.1992ARGENTINA11.01.1973 (R)11.04.1973ARMENIA¹05.09.1993 (S)Note 1 AUSTRALIA30.10.1989 (Ac)30.01.1990AZERBAIJAN25.08.1999 (R)25.11.1999BAHAMAS09.10.1997 (R)09.01.1998BANGLADESH09.12.198709.03.1988BELARUS28.04.1988 (R)28.07.1988BELIZE26.01.1990 (R)26.04.1990BOLIVIA04.10.1976 (R)04.01.1977BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA²12.07.1993 (S)Note 2BRAZIL16.02.1973 (R)16.05.1973BULGARIA515.09.1971 (R)24.04.1972BURKINA FASO07.04.1987 (R)07.07.1987CAMBODIA26.09.1972 (R)26.12.1972CAMEROON24.05.1972 (R)24.08.1972CANADA 28.03.1978 (Ac)28.06.1978CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC01.02.1972 (R)01.05.1972CHINA28.11.1989 (Ac)28.02.1990COLOMBIA24.05.1988 (Ac)24.08.1988COSTA RICA06.03.1996 (R)06.06.1996COTE D'IVOIRE30.10.1990 (R)30.01.1991CROATIA²06.07.1992 (S)Note 2 CUBA30.01.1980 (R)30.04.1980CYPRUS 19.10.1979 (R)19.01.1980CZECH REPUBLIC³26.03.1993 (S)Note 3DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA13.05.1983 (R)13.08.1983DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO23.09.1974 (R)23.12.1974DOMINICAN REPUBLIC07.03.1973 (R)07.06.1973ECUADOR524.03.1971 (Ac)24.04.1972EGYPT05.04.1973 (Ac)05.07.1973EL SALVADOR20.02.1978 (R)20.05.1978ESTONIA 27.10.1995 (R)27.01.1996FINLAND14.06.1999 (R)14.09.1999FRANCE07.01.1997 (R)07.04.1997GEORGIA¹04.11.1992 (S)Note 1GREECE 05.06.1981 (R)05.09.1981GRENADA10.09.1992 (Ac)10.12.1992GUATEMALA14.01.1985 (R)14.04.1985GUINEA 18.03.1979 (R)18.06.1979HONDURAS19.03.1979 (R)19.06.1979HUNGARY23.10.1978 (R)23.01.1979INDIA24.01.1977 (R)24.04.1977IRAN, Islamic Republic of27.01.1975 (Ac)27.04.1975IRAQ12.02.1973 (Ac)12.05.1973ITALY02.10.1978 (R)02.01.1979JORDAN 15.03.1974 (R)15.06.1974KUWAIT22.06.1972 (Ac)22.09.1972KYRGYZSTAN03.07.1995 (A)03.10.1995LEBANON25.08.1992 (R)25.11.1992LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA09.01.1973 (R)09.04.1973LITHUANIA27.07.1998 (R)27.10.1998MADAGASCAR21.06.1989 (R)21.09.1989MALI06.04.1987 (R)06.07.1987MAURITANIA27.04.1977 (R)27.07.1977MAURITIUS27.02.1978 (Ac)27.05.1978MEXICO04.10.1972 (Ac)04.01.1973MONGOLIA23.05.1991 (Ac)23.08.1991NEPAL23.06.1976 (R)23.09.1976NICARAGUA19.04.1977 (R)19.07.1977NIGER16.10.1972 (R)16.01.1973NIGERIA 24.01.1972 (R)24.04.1972OMAN02.06.1978 (Ac)02.09.1978PAKISTAN30.04.1981 (R)30.07.1981PANAMA13.08.1973 (Ac)13.11.1973PERU24.10.1979 (Ac)24.01.1980POLAND31.01.1974 (R)30.04.1974PORTUGAL09.12.1985 (R)09.03.1986QATAR20.04.1977 (Ac)20.07.1977REPUBLIC OF KOREA14.02.1983 (Ac)14.05.1983ROMANIA06.12.1993 (R)06.03.1994RUSSIAN FEDERATION428.04.1988 (R)28.07.1988SAUDI ARABIA08.09.1976 (Ac)08.12.1976SENEGAL09.12.1984 (R)09.03.1985SLOVAKIA³31.03.1993 (S)Note 3 SLOVENIA²05.11.1992 (S)Note 2 SPAIN10.01.1986 (R)10.04.1986SRI LANKA07.04.1981 (Ac)07.07.1981SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC21.02.1975 (Ac)21.05.1975TAJIKISTAN ¹28.08.1992 (S)Note 1THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA 430.04.1997 (S)Note 2TUNISIA10.03.1975 (R)10.06.1975TURKEY21.04.1981 (R)21.07.1981UKRAINE28.04.1988 (R)28.07.1988UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA02.08.1977 (R)02.11.1977UNITED STATES OF AMERICA02.09.1983 (Ac)02.12.1983URUGUAY09.08.1977 (R)09.11.1977UZBEKISTAN15.03.1996 (R)15.06.1996YUGOSLAVIA03.10.1972 (R)03.01.1973ZAMBIA21.06.1985 (R)21.09.1985Notes: 1. This State lodged a notification of succession at the mentioned date, by which it stated that it was bound by the Convention that the USSR ratified on 28 April 1988. 2. This State lodged a notification of succession at the mentioned date, by which it stated that it was bound by the Convention which Yugoslavia ratified on 3 October 1972. 3. This State lodged a notification of succession at the mentioned date, by which it stated that it was bound by the Convention which Czechoslovakia accepted on 14 February 1977. 4. The instrument of ratification was deposited by the USSR on 28 April 1988. The Director-General has been informed that the Russian Federation would continue the participation of the USSR in UNESCO conventions. 5. In conformity with the procedure set forth in the Convention, this agreement entered into force, for the first three States, three months after the deposit of ratification by the Third State, Nigeria.21684(Question No. 798)79821684Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 August 1999: (1) How many full-time equivalent staff positions will be dedicated to the goods and services tax (GST) related tasks referred to in the Portfolio Budget Statement for the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in (a) 1999-2000, (b) 2000-2001, (c) 2001-2002, (d) 2002-2003. (2) What will be the total cost of staff in each year referred to in part (1). (3) How many staff will be sourced (a) internally and (b) via external recruitment for GST related tasks. (4) What will happen to staff currently dealing with sales tax. (5) Will the ATO achieve the savings necessary to reduce staffing expenditure from $996,762,000 in 1999-2000 to $879,060,000 in 2002-2003. 21685Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is: (1) (a) As at 30 June 2000, a total of 4835 staff were working on GST and GST related matters. A large number of these staff were previously working on sales tax and other tax issues within the ATO. (b), (c) and (d) Future numbers will be similar to those outlined above. (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) The salary costs for GST related staff are outlined in the 1998/1999 MYEFO at page 26 and in the 1999/2000 MYEFO at page 135. (3) (a) and (b) The workforce to administer the GST has been recruited through a merit selection process following advertising of jobs in the Commonwealth Gazette and national and local newspapers. Approximately 60% of successful candidates have been external appointees to the ATO. (4) Because the sales tax has been abolished, sales tax staff are now working in other areas of the ATO. A small number have been retained to deal with residual sales tax workloads but these staff will be progressively deployed to other ATO work as residual workloads reduce. (5) The formal estimates relevant to the ATO are outlined in the 2000/2001 Budget Paper No 4.