2001-03-053918REPS2489102001-03-05—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Delegation Reports248912489112:31:0024891Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Hungary and Poland. Thank you for the opportunity to support the tabling of the delegation's report on bilateral visits to Hungary and Poland. It was a privilege to represent the parliament and you, Mr Speaker, and an added privilege to lead the delegation. Poland and Hungary are both fascinating countries. Their recent history is very similar as they now enjoy participating in free democracies. There are also similarities in their histories, because it has been a huge struggle over thousands of years to achieve this free democracy.Poland has been on the crossroads between bullies for centuries and Hungary has also suffered the indignity of domination by more powerful neighbours for hundreds of years. Both countries have monuments to human tragedies and statues of martyrs who fought for freedom and the liberties which we in Australia simply take for granted. It was refreshing to meet and greet a great range of people in both countries and get a sense of the new optimism which they now enjoy with elected parliamentary democracy.There are very strong people to people links between Australia and the Polish and Hungarian peoples. The contribution that the peoples from both countries have made to Australia's development over the years has been significant and much appreciated. We met many people who had relatives here, had resided here for a time or had recently visited Australia. These links are invaluable and there are significant mutual opportunities for increased economic activity for Australian investment in Hungary and Poland. Indeed, we were able to visit a number of examples where this is already happening, to which I will refer later.The visit occurred in October last year, only a month after the Sydney Olympics. Much praise was offered from many of the people we met for the wonderful manner in which the Olympics had been conducted. The contribution of the 50,000 volunteers was particularly noted, because it spoke volumes about the Australian spirit. In particular, comments from the Deputy Speaker of the Hungarian National Assembly, Ms Katalin Szili, and the Marshal of the Polish Sejm, Mr Maciej Plazynski, were much appreciated. Both asked for their best wishes to be passed on to you, Mr Speaker.Examples of Australian involvement in Hungary include the use of Australian software expertise in the Budapest stock exchange. It was pleasing to witness this example of Australian-Hungarian partnership in the development of enterprise which is playing a key role in Hungary's economic growth. We saw an example of the very strong people to people links being developed further into economic enterprise in our visit to Ifonex-Hungary. This is a global voice-over Internet company based in Sydney and managed by Mr Andrew Sebestyen. Mr Sebestyen is a Hungarian speaking Australian returning to his native country to participate in its burgeoning new economy.Similar examples were found in Poland. On a visit to the regional city of Lodz, we were able to inspect the Amcor Polska plant. Amcor is an Australian based global company specialising in packaging which is taking advantage of the strategic location in Poland to launch into eastern European markets. There were many highlights of the visit and it is difficult to do justice to them all in a short time. The best I can do is commend the report to honourable members. One of the highlights for me was the visit to Szolnok in Hungary on the River Tisza, which suffered the ravages of a serious cyanide spill in January last year. This matter is now the subject of legal representation, so I am restricted in what I can say, but it was pleasing to spend time with the community at Szolnok, given that the cyanide spill resulted from the mining activities of an Australian company operating upstream in Romania. The community was very appreciative of the monetary assistance provided by the Australian government to assist in water quality management of the River Tisza. It would be remiss of me if I were not to make reference to our visits to monuments and our laying of wreaths to so many heroes and martyrs of the struggle these two countries have had over the centuries, such heroes as Imry Nagy in Budapest, Hungary—a martyr in the anti-Communist struggle; we also laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Warsaw and witnessed the record of the insane tragedy of Auschwitz. All of these left indelible impressions on the members of the delegation.Other highlights included witnessing the benefits of Australian innovation by Cochlear, who are providing hearing assistance to Hungarian youngsters. We met two delightful recipients, Katinka Sandor and Heather Banko. The whole world has now opened up for these special children with the use of Australian technology. (Time expired)12:36:0024892Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—It gives me great pleasure to rise to make some comments about the visits that we had on this trip. The leader of the delegation, the honourable Mr Forrest, has pointed out some of them. I was certainly impressed with the long and rich history of Hungary and the enormous strides they have taken since 1989 in rebuilding a free market economy. Our program was wide and we covered many topics and issues. We met many officials from many different departments. In education, they are making strides; they seem to split their education into technical skill development and academic development, the sort of thing we are looking at with our vocational training in several areas. They have had a historical direction down this track. They have challenges: a lot of inflation, strong domestic demand and a forecast rise in commodity prices. We were able to speak to them about their entry into the European Union, which is of great interest to Australia. They have always been interested in supporting the opening up of trade markets. They were very keen to look at this and to move along in that direction. Of course, they said they were now seeking entry to the European Union and, therefore, they would be bound by the rules that applied if they became a member.The visit to Szolnok dealt with the Tisza River, where the poison that was put into that river in Romania came. Of course, the Hungarians had to deal with that. We did a full press conference there, which I thought the leader handled very well, as well as several other questions that came to us. I do not think the Hungarian people blame the Australian people for anything and I think it was a very good exercise. We also learnt a lot about how the Hungarians shift their water about in their rivers—particularly as we grapple with some of our salinity problems and the need to pull state governments together to deal with our river systems and our catchment areas. In places like Central Europe they are dealing with river systems and catchment areas which cross over sovereign borders and they need to deal with those issues.We laid several wreaths for martyrs to the cause of the country, especially some during the Second World War, for example, Wallenberg who was a Swedish diplomat who played a role in saving many people from the Nazi gas chambers. That was really worth doing. Another significant thing was to visit the park. When regimes fall, usually most of the statues are pulled down and destroyed. The Hungarians have taken all their large statues of Lenin and other local people to a park area, which is not very well kept, but they have set them up in this park and you can go and visit it and see a lot of the last era's statues. Perhaps in the future it will become a major attraction in Budapest. I certainly enjoyed the goulash soup, which the Hungarians lavished on us on many occasions. I was very fortunate to come back with a very good cookbook from Hungary. Poland was also a very interesting visit. Of course, there is a great connection between the Polish people and the Australian people. In Tasmania, we have had migration from Poland post war, and many Polish immigrants helped us build our hydro schemes. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Lyons's time has expired. I am, however, conscious that the member for Chifley is unable to be here and the debate does not need to conclude until 12.45 p.m. I would be happy to extend a minute's grace to the member for Lyons, if that would be helpful, and a similar facility to the member for Mallee.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Meetings with the friendship groups of Poland and the Polish parliament provided an excellent opportunity to exchange views, to lunch with them, to speak with them officially and unofficially about parliamentary democracy in their country and in ours, and to exchange ideas and views. I was very keen to talk to them about regional policy in the east of Poland where difficulties occur similar to ours—regional people trying to compete and trying to deal with the loss of population and the difficulties of getting technology. Those sorts of issues came to the fore. So it was a very worthwhile visit.We also had a very good visit to a wool scouring enterprise in Poland. Hopefully, because of the links that Poland has had in the broadest sense in the wool industry in Eastern Europe in the past, it may be able to come to the fore in using Australian wool into the future. Overall, it was a very successful visit and I have great pleasure in supporting the tabling of the report.12:43:0024893Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—by leave—We were also pleased to meet the Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Wladyslaw Bartoszewki. This man is a legend in his own time, when you review the history of his incarceration by one tyrant after another. He is a great example of the determination of the Polish people to succeed against the odds.In conclusion, I thank my fellow delegates for their contribution to the success of the delegation: the deputy leader, the member for Chifley, the Hon. Roger Price; the member of Indi, the Hon. Lou Lieberman; the member for Lyons, the Hon. Dick Adams, who spoke; and Senator the Hon. Chris Schacht and Senator Winston Crane. All members made invaluable contributions and I believe we equipped ourselves well to present a favourable impression of our country, Australia. I was particularly grateful for the delegates' and members' assistance during the sensitive press conference at Szolnok regarding the cyanide spill. I make special mention of the secretary to the delegation, Richard Selth, whose assistance was invaluable to the success of the visit. Thanks to the presiding officers of the Polish and Hungarian parliaments, their excellencies, Mr Mark Higgie, now retired, Ambassador to Hungary, and Mrs Margaret Adamson, Ambassador to Poland, and to their staff—and a particular mention to the protocol staff in both countries who worked so hard to present very demanding schedules. To you, finally, Mr Speaker, a special thanks for entrusting us all with the responsibility of representing Australia abroad. Committees24893248932489312:46:0024893Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, I present the committee's interim report entitled Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 1999-00: the Wagga Wagga hearing, together with the minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—This unanimous report of the House economics committee reviews the performance of the Reserve Bank in its management of monetary policy from May to December 2000. It is based on the committee's public hearing with the bank held, historically, in Wagga Wagga on 1 December last year. The staging of this hearing was a significant occasion in the history of both the committee and the Reserve Bank. It brought the bank and the committee to the people of regional Australia, showing that both parties are committed to the needs and interests of those living outside Australia's metropolitan bases. Two people instrumental in allowing this historical meeting to take place were the member for Farrer, the Hon. Tim Fischer, and the member for Riverina, Mrs Kay Hull, who is also a member of the economics committee. On behalf of the economics committee, I thank both colleagues for making it possible. The Reserve Bank told the committee Australia has `avoided the boom-bust cycle in economic policy, and hence has an excellent outlook for the coming year.' However, the bank also stressed that this should not lead to complacency, spelling out to the committee several potential risk areas for the nation's economy—factors such as the world economy, the contraction in housing construction and business confidence. These matters are considered in detail as part of the report we table today.The significance of the cautionary stance by the bank has now been revealed—in particular, the decision by the United States Federal Reserve to cut interest rates by one per cent in January this year, followed by the RBA's interest rate cut of 0.5 per cent to 5.75 per cent on February 7. Both moves reflect the changing economic circumstances the country faces, and this week's national account figures will shine further light on the bank's forecasts. Concern was also raised regarding a fall in business confidence following the highs of 1999. With the small business sector in mind, the committee asked the Reserve Bank to look into the value of existing surveys of business confidence and investigate why there was a recent drop in confidence amongst small business.Other issues highlighted by the report include: the bank's continued modest underestimates of economic growth; its expectations of continued low inflation levels; the bank's continued assumption that the GST will cause only a once-off price hike and will not filter through to inflation; exchange rate movements and when the bank is prepared to intervene; and warnings from the governor in the lead-up to the federal election. In its report, the committee also highlights its concern regarding the sample used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in compiling the consumer price index. The CPI measures price changes in the spending patterns of all metropolitan private households, but does not specifically measure the changes in regional households. Accordingly, the committee has recommended the Australian Bureau of Statistics work to find ways of including regional households, thus making the CPI a better representation of the wider Australian community. All are aware that the economic committee's hearings with the Reserve Bank attract interest from the parliament, the people, the financial sector and the financial media. While the hearings have been an excellent avenue of transparency and accountability for the bank, the committee continues to strive to find ways to improve this even further. In our report, we note the committee's surprise at the apparent tone and breach of confidentiality by a former board member. The committee intends to continue following up the workings of the board. The report also outlines the results of the Reserve Bank and the ACCC's interchange fees study—interchange fees being the charge banks pay to each other for servicing credit and debit cards. It also details the Reserve Bank and the ACCC's plans to work with financial institutions in reducing charges relating to the use of credit and debit cards. The committee will keep its eye on many of these issues at its next hearing with the governor, which will be held in Melbourne on 11 May this year, coinciding, of course, with Centenary of Federation celebrations. Finally, I thank the governor, Ian Macfarlane, and his staff for their cooperation and assistance. I also thank all members of the committee, Bev Forbes, Kevin Bodel and Belynda Zolotto; and Dave Richardson from the parliamentary library for their contributions to this inquiry and report. I commend the report to the House.12:50:0024894Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—At the outset, I wish to commend the Governor of the Reserve Bank, the Assistant Governor Financial Systems, and the Assistant Governor Economics for not only giving so willingly of their time to the committee but for the extra effort of travelling to Wagga Wagga for two days. I will admit I had reservations about the need to have the hearing in a regional centre but I am happy to say the experience was very successful and I would encourage other committees to get out there. As always, the hearing provided an excellent opportunity for the Governor of the Reserve Bank to articulate the direction of monetary policy in Australia and to attempt to make the internal workings of the board transparent. Given the speculation in the press about the machinations of the board's process and calls for greater reporting of board proceedings, it was a sad indictment on most of the financial press that they saw no need to travel outside their comfort zones to report more accurately on the actual proceedings. As Sid Marris rightly pointed out in the Australian, the audio link could not do full justice to the scene. It would be extremely interesting to have the Governor of the Reserve Bank before us today to examine the government's current triple somersault on fiscal policy for it was only three short months ago that the governor in his opening statement before the committee said:On the fiscal policy, the need to more than compensate consumers for the imposition of the GST ensured that it moved in an expansionary direction between last financial year and the present one. Again, I think we can argue that, even though the budgetary position will remain in surplus for medium term purposes, the current stance of fiscal policy is not imposing a contractionary influence on the economy at all.The question to be asked of the governor is, will the one-sided bidding war the government has embarked upon have an expansionary influence on the economic outlook? Is the present fiscal setting of the government going to undo all the good work of the Reserve Bank in avoiding the boom-bust cycle? Sadly, we will have to wait until November to get an answer, and by then it may be too late.On this question of fiscal policy we have been getting mixed messages from the governor. In November 1999, the governor told us that we need to counterbalance big deficits in early years with large surpluses in later years following large expansions. In May 2000 he told the committee that this was extremely difficult to achieve in a democracy, as people asked, `Why am I paying all these taxes to the government when they do not even know what to do with them?' Then in December 2000 the governor argued strongly in favour of tighter fiscal policy. He said:Yes, I would be concerned about a bidding war. I have said that before and I repeat that now, that I would be concerned about it. For all sorts of long run reasons to do with our national savings, our capacity to invest for the future, other than in very weak years, that is, recession years, I think it is important that governments run surpluses.What is the governor signalling here: that he no longer has a sanguine view of fiscal policy, that he has given up on a government which has a high tax, high spend policy—or is he preparing for the fallout of a government spending war to hold on to government at all costs? Again, I will not get the chance to ask before November, and by then it may be too late. At the conclusion of the December hearing, I and the majority of press covering the event left the room with the view that interest rates were on hold, that the economy was continuing to grow, albeit at a slower rate, that the US was heading for a soft landing and that there was no interest rate cut on the horizon. The governor expressed the view that the board was happy with the five increases they had previously delivered and when they had been delivered. So, whilst I was not surprised by the rate cut in February—as members know, when you are out there in the community you can feel that things are slowing down—I was bemused by the mixed messages the governor was giving to the committee and the speed of the subsequent rate cut following recent rises. Whilst the governor's appearance before the committee is a crucial element in the bank's transparency and independence, the conflicting messages at hearings and those reported in the press by various board members highlight the need for greater disclosure of the board's processes and information on which it is making decisions. As the Financial Review editorial at the time pointed out: The bottom line is that private-sector decision making is helped by regular information, particularly if it balances the noises from other sources. Whether it is monthly statements, the release of minutes or more public hearings, it is a legitimate and important subject for debate.I commend the committee's report and our endeavours to find out more about the actual processes of the board. I am sure my colleague the member for Werriwa will have more to say on this subject.All the partial indicators to date point to a slowing domestic economy in a post GST period, which undoubtedly will put pressure again on the Reserve Bank to cut interest rates. I am sure tomorrow's meeting will be a very interesting one for the board. All the while fiscal policy is being loosened by the government, so again it would be interesting to hear the governor's view on our economic outlook and the impact of loosening the purse strings. The governor presented a strident view about this at our committee hearing, and I would commend that people read his view in the report. Another aspect in the report that was very interesting was the Reserve Bank's and the ACCC's report into credit card interchange fees and ATM fees. I commend the governor and his fellow members for the strong view they have taken on this. The committee will be monitoring this with interest to see that they do something about regulating this most serious aspect of bank fees and charges. (Time expired)12:55:0024896Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—The Reserve Bank of Australia's half-yearly hearing held before the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration in Wagga Wagga in December last year was widely welcomed by our local businesspeople, our community members and the media. It created an opportunity for people in rural and regional Australia to witness first-hand the hearing and cultivate an understanding of monetary policy and the role of the Reserve Bank. This historic event also proved to be a success with local high school students. Two economics classes from Trinity Senior High School and Wagga Wagga High School attended the hearing and were lucky enough to receive an economics lesson from the governor. During the hearing I tabled a question on behalf of the students from Wagga Wagga High School which at the time I mistakenly identified as being from Trinity Senior High School. They asked about the Australian dollar. The Wagga Wagga High School students asked: does the Reserve Bank have a predetermined dangerously low limit for the Australian dollar? How low can we let the dollar fall? In follow-on, if it reaches a dangerously low level, what will the Reserve Bank and the federal government do to appreciate the dollar? Why didn't the demand for the Australian dollar during the Olympics lead to an increase in the value of the dollar? The governor began his answer by stating that this was the best question all day and then proceeded to deliver his response. Having access to the hearings is a way of fostering an interest in monetary policy in Australia in young people living in regional and rural areas. As a result of the hearing, I received in my office a letter from Mr Larry Rich, an economics teacher at Wagga Wagga High School and now Coolamon Central School, who attended the hearing with his students. Mr Rich wrote:Being an economics teacher, my students and myself greatly appreciated the opportunity to attend this meeting. Monetary policy, including interest rates and the value of the Australian dollar, are a major part of the new Higher School Certificate course in economics. Being a member of the economics committee, you should appreciate, Mrs Hull, the need for young Australians to have economic knowledge. Unfortunately, economics is a dying subject in high schools. For this reason, any opportunity to promote the value of this subject can only benefit politics and Australia into the future. I think we should all be concerned over the declining importance of economics as a Higher School Certificate subject. On Mr Rich's request, I made representations to the governor addressing these issues. The governor promptly responded, saying: I agree that there is a need to do all we can to encourage the study of economics in the high schools, with hopefully a flow-on to university studies. I am pleased that one of the side benefits of the committee's regional hearings is that we reach a wider audience of students.He goes on to suggest the possibility of schools in regional areas visiting the Reserve Bank's head office in Sydney. As it is not always a feasible option for schools in rural and remote areas to take advantage of the governor's invitation, I sincerely hope that, as a result of the positive impact of this hearing, the Reserve Bank hearings will continue to be held in other regional areas.Small businesses may be a future winner from the hearing in Wagga Wagga, with express recognition by the governor of their role as a major generator of employment in Australia. After discussion by the governor on the reduction in business confidence, and coming from a small business family, I posed this question: bearing in mind that small businesses are the greatest employer of people across Australia, should the reduction in business confidence not be taken more seriously for small business and should there not be more work undertaken to determine just exactly why? If confidence is low and there does not appear to be an understanding as to why, then surely that has to be a problem for the future in employment prospects.The governor replied that, if there are things making small businesses less enthusiastic than large businesses, it would be worth while knowing. After further prompting from Mr Hawker and me, the governor confirmed the likelihood that he would undertake further research on the issue before the next hearing. I look forward to the next hearing. I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the committee for wholeheartedly supporting this historic meeting in Wagga Wagga. Also, I encourage the committee to continue to look for other venues and areas whereby this important practice can take place in future. Rural and regional people are interested in the monetary policy of the future of Australia and it is a great advantage for our students to be able to come into contact with such prestigious hearings as the Reserve Bank inquiry and hearings.13:00:0024897Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration met in Wagga Wagga so as to acquaint the committee and the Reserve Bank with the state of regional Australia. I am happy to have been to Wagga Wagga and now to come back to the House and report that the dams were full, the fields were green, the roads were sealed and quite smooth, the services were very good and, as the Governor of the Reserve Bank pointed out, the town looked quite prosperous. We met in a local government council chamber which indicated that they had plenty of money available for servicing the needs of their municipal constituents. I am sure it is true that, as the Deputy Prime Minister reported to the House last week, farm incomes will reach $11.2 billion this year, up $2 billion from last year. If that is the case, then we can be assured that the fine city of Wagga Wagga will obtain its fair share of such rural prosperity.More generally, it is a difficult time for the making of monetary policy in this country. There are many cross-currents in the Australian economy which have been caused by the introduction of the government's tax package. To some extent, even the Reserve Bank is confused. At the hearing, Mr Macfarlane stated that he thought the tax package was well timed because of its fiscal stimulus. Yet I noticed last month that, in announcing the cut in interest rates, the Reserve Bank to some extent blamed the GST for the slowing of the Australian economy. There is further evidence of policy making confusion. For our last two hearings, the bank has left the committee with a very clear impression that interest rates were on hold, yet a short time thereafter they moved by a substantial amount. Undoubtedly, this is a volatile environment for the making of monetary policy, driven mainly by the uncertainty about the prospects for the United States economy and—this was the point well made by the member for Chisholm—the deterioration in the government's fiscal policy. This is a government in political panic, throwing money at every conceivable problem on the horizon. There is no doubt that the loosening of fiscal discipline—political panic converted into pork-barrelling—is the major barrier to another interest rate cut. We will see what the Reserve Bank does at its meeting tomorrow, but there is no doubt that the loosening of fiscal policy would be of major concern to the Reserve Bank, as it would be to any sensible economic commentator. Of course, the Reserve Bank has its critics. There are many in the business community who have said that they believe that interest rates went up too much too quickly last year. At our hearing, the Reserve Bank made the point that in the immediate past the economy has been much stronger than it forecast. Nonetheless its critics forecast much weaker growth, further underestimating the strength of the Australian economy. Again, this week we will see further evidence in that debate with the release of the national accounts on Wednesday. Generally, though, the Reserve Bank gave a good explanation of its forecasting. It very clearly has a dislike of knee-jerk reactions in the media and elsewhere to every single piece of economic data. There is a galaxy of economic indicators and statistics that are released on a monthly basis. The Reserve Bank likes to take the bigger picture and get a firm handle on the direction of the economy before moving monetary policy.It is very important for our committee to monitor the structure and processes of the Reserve Bank. My impression is that the Reserve Bank would like to see an update, a modernisation of its legislation, but it is quite scared of what might happen in the Senate. Nonetheless, there should be many people in this parliament thinking about policy changes or legislative alterations to the charter of the Reserve Bank. Even a former board member, Professor Adrian Pagan, recently aired concerns and these need to be taken seriously. First of all, he has made public the information that he and the Secretary to the Treasury, Ted Evans, voted against interest rates rises through the course of 2000. In the interests of transparency, it would be better for that information to be coming directly from the Reserve Bank, rather than from an outgoing board member. This strengthens our committee's argument that minutes of meetings of the Reserve Bank should be released on a regular basis. The second point made by Professor Pagan is that the board lacks sufficient expertise on monetary policy. There should be a reduction in the number of business representatives on the board, an increase in the number of monetary policy experts and a capacity for all board members to commission and access Reserve Bank research. These are good points which, thankfully, the committee will investigate further in the coming months. We look forward to reporting further to this House.13:05:0024898Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Since the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration met in Wagga Wagga in December, the United States Federal Reserve cut interest rates by one per cent in January 2001 and our own Reserve Bank cut interest rates by 50 basis points. So the outlook for the world economy—although it was predicted in December—has changed somewhat. The economics committee provides important parliamentary oversight of the Reserve Bank of Australia. All countries have different central banking arrangements and each one believes that its is the best. The Australian Reserve Bank takes decisions independent of the government and aims to keep inflation within two to three per cent in the medium term. In the four years that I have been on the committee, it has largely kept inflation within that band. In the period of the review, the economy grew at 4.7 per cent over 1990-2000. The composition of growth has changed, with weak house building and very strong exports. There has been weakness in the building industry in other countries—New Zealand and Canada—with the introduction of a GST, due to strong demand prior to its introduction. We should also remember that housing is only five per cent of GDP while exports make up 20 per cent of GDP.Australia benefits enormously from world trade. One in five Australian jobs is now linked to exports. A recent survey showed that Australian exporters pay their employees $14,700 more. In the area of foreign investment, for every dollar spent in Australia 96c stays in Australia. The Reserve Bank governor, when referring to the low Australian dollar, submitted to CEDA and said in evidence to the committee that there were three factors to consider: firstly, that there is a strong US dollar; secondly, that exchange rates tend to follow momentum; and, thirdly, that some people were influenced by this new economy/old economy distinction. I notice that the Reserve Bank governor said, and I agree with him, that the distinction there is superficial and unfair. If you look at Australia's record in IT and communications, we are among the top handful of countries by any measure you choose to look at. For example, an OECD survey shows, taking IT spending as a share of GDP and the per capita ownership of computers, that we are second in the world. The Australian IT and communications market is larger than that of the 10 ASEAN countries combined. We have the largest number of Internet service providers per capita in the Asia-Pacific. Sixty per cent of our businesses are online. We have had a higher rate of productivity growth over the last five years than have the G7 countries. Turning to specific exports, last year we exported something like $4.2 billion in automotive exports. We have also exported $1.5 billion in wine. These are examples of industries which are actually taking on competition and exporting and thereby creating Australian jobs. Australian wine is now poised to overtake France as the largest exporter into the United Kingdom. Previous speakers mentioned fiscal policy. The Reserve Bank governor commented that the current fiscal policy stance is not imposing a contractionary influence on the economy at all; it is not leading to any rises in existing rates, and what we have seen is an interest rate fall. He also talked about income tax cuts. He said they were helping to keep the economy on a growth path. This is an important year: we are facing an election. We have globophobe parties such as the Australian Democrats and Pauline Hanson's One Nation who are against foreign investment. If they had their way, we would not see Australia exporting in the way we are. Our diversity, our use of English, our common law tradition, our flexible labour markets, our corporate law governance and our sophisticated IT and communications all give Australia a comparative advantage when competing in the world economy in the 21st century.13:10:0024899Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—This is a timely occasion on which to consider the Reserve Bank annual report, given that the Reserve Bank will be meeting tomorrow. It could be expected that that meeting will consider whether there should be lower interest rates. No doubt they will also be considering the lower growth forecasts in the economy and the government's actions which have resulted in the government pumping money into the economy in order to solve their political problems. You only need to look also at their inconsistent attitude. On petrol, of course, we had the Prime Minister say that to cut or reduce the government excise would be economically irresponsible. However, in today's newspaper we read that a fiscal stimulus is welcome. The report in fact outlines some of the concerns that are there. One is that, with the world economy being in downturn, particularly the relationship of the Australian economy with that of the United States raises a general issue about the sovereignty of national parliaments and the extent to which governments can implement economic change. Secondly, it outlines as a reason for the downturn the distortion created by the GST to the housing and construction sector. That led to a massive stimulus leading up to 1 July last year, but now there is a complete collapse of that sector, which is one of the concerns that we on this side of the House had with the implementation of the GST. Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly given it is a unanimous report by government members, the report says that the drop in business confidence is largely due to the GST. The report says that a number of businesses have only recently had to face up to the practicality of paying the GST as well as rising petrol prices. This drop in business confidence and the changes that the government have had to make to the business activity statement are indeed reasons for the economic difficulties that the government find themselves in—of their own making—due to the introduction of the goods and services tax. The report also refers to concerns that members on this side of the House have had with the level of executive salaries and, at a time when the government is being mean-spirited in the speeches that we hear in this place from the minister responsible for workplace relations with regard to the ACTU's claim, it would be nice if the government could say something about the level of executive salaries so that there can be a bit of balance brought into the equation. We can get the Governor of the Reserve Bank to say it; we cannot get this government to say anything about this issue.I want to also comment on bank fees. The Governor of the Reserve Bank once again expressed concern at the hearing regarding bank fees. It has been said that interchange fees average $1.03 per transaction, which is double the cost—49c—of providing the service. It is little wonder that people are objecting to bank closures and the level of bank fees around the nation. Turning to bank closures, the merger of the Commonwealth and the Colonial banks has resulted in local members such as me receiving letters. But the banks are not even honest when it comes to the closing of branches. People such as the member for Lowe have led the charge in the campaign to ensure that bank fees are made accountable.I will conclude by thanking, on behalf of the opposition, the members of the committee; the secretary, Bev Forbes; the inquiry secretary, Mr Kevin Bodel; the administrative officer, Belynda Zolotto, and also David Richardson from the parliamentary library for providing advice to the board. I think it was a successful meeting in regional Australia. It is a process that should be continued. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. 24900Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—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.Bills24900S29324900Bill presented by Mr Beazley.13:15:0024900Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—In about 15 minutes time—and the speech will be split into two halves therefore—I will be presenting the accompanying legislation, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Petrol Tax Cut) Bill 2001. This bill is called the Excise Tariff Amendment (Petrol Tax Cut) Bill 2001. It is a bill for an act to amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to provide relief from the 1 February 2001 indexation of rates of excise duty applying to petroleum.Standing orders do not allow bills altering taxation rates to be moved by anyone other than a minister. Therefore, this bill seeks to empower the House to pass a resolution to cut the rate of excise on domestic fuel by the amount of the February adjustment—that is, 1.525 cents per litre.Questions may be asked why we are proceeding with these bills, given the Prime Minister's Anthony Mundine act last week. It must be said that the Anthony Mundine act is normally performed—or was—in the days he played league in a state of high exuberance over a triumphal act. In this case, the backflip is performed without a smile on the face, with absolute misery and with the sense of necessity that comes with something having been done, effectively, at political gunpoint. The Treasurer introduced tariff proposals last Thursday, which reduced the tax effective from Friday. However, these measures only last for one year. The tax cut has not been made permanent; legislation is needed to do that. This is important, because the Prime Minister was asked by Glenn Milne on Sunday to rule out further discretionary increases in fuel excise, and he refused to do so. Not legislating last week's tariff proposals would effectively amount to a discretionary excise increase. This bill gives a legislative safeguard to prevent that happening. This is about keeping up the pressure.These bills I introduce today are important because—in the best traditions of good, solid, accountability-keeping opposition—we have held the government to account and forced a change in public policy. Make no mistake: these bills have played the major part in this government's petrol tax conversion last week—that and a certain matter of a by-election in Ryan—and I will have more to say about that later. The Prime Minister was out there, eating crow but saying, `No, this isn't a backflip related to the election in Ryan or anything else; this is sound public policy by the government. We've discovered the need for a fiscal stimulus and this has obliged us to make the changes that we have.' What nonsense. This was not an act on the Prime Minister's part about saving the economy; it was an act on the Prime Minister's part about saving his political skin. That is why it has gone over so badly with the Australian electorate—why they have viewed it with such suspicion and why they have not given him credit, certainly not the credit that he would have desired. In the ninemsn poll—in which people email those conducting the poll to give them an indication of how they feel about a proposition that has come forward or any particular question that is asked of them—some 4,000 people felt that this would make a bit of a difference to their vote and held the view that they would put the government, their having made this statement, in a somewhat higher regard. But something like 13,000 people said the opposite.The people of this country are on to this government, they are on to its credibility, and they understand why it acts the way it does. It does not act in these matters out of conviction. It acts under pressure—in this case, the pressure of a by-election. One of the things that you can say to the electors of Ryan on this and so many others matters is that you cannot change the government with the vote two weeks from now but you can sure as heck change its mind. Just as it has been important to change its mind on petrol, just as it was important to change its mind on providing some relief for businesses confronting appalling compliance requirements associated with the GST, so it is important to change its mind on its meanness of spirit associated with what has happened to compensation arrangements for pensions with regard to the impact of the goods and services tax.There are plenty more things for which it is worth while placing pressure on this government, particularly when you know that your pressure is most likely to succeed. As the Prime Minister said to his party room, he is no longer about governing the country for the sake of the good of the country; he is about governing it to win the next election. That is his overriding motive. It has to be said that he is not necessarily the best judge of what will win in that election, but it opens an opportunity for pressure to resolve the injustices that he has inflicted on this country over the last few years.But it is not just Ryan which has caused the Anthony Mundine act by the Prime Minister. I am willing to lay a bet that the further reason the Prime Minister was forced to move last week was that he had been threatened by enough members of his backbench that they would cross the floor and vote for this bill or else abstain. He knew these bills were to be introduced today. He knew that there were at least 10 backbenchers Labor had put pressure on to stop being cowards in Canberra while lions at home. He knew there were enough people in this situation to oblige a change in legislation. He knew the Labor Party was burning those backbenchers alive in their electorates. And he had been threatened. If the backflip hadn't occurred last Thursday—make no mistake—the government would have been backflipped by these bills today. So I hope people will forgive me if I give them a decent send-off today. We will be reminding motorists that, had the government followed Labor's advice and frozen the February excise increase, motorists would have saved the $43 million which the Howard government ripped off them before the backflip last week. Every day this backflip was delayed, every day that the government acted on the Prime Minister's spurious justification related to the budget as he was repeatedly called on to answer questions about the matter, cost Australian motorists more than $1 million. That is $43 million that they will not see again; $43 million which could have gone into dealing with the problems that the average household confronts day to day; $43 million which could have gone to those folk in our community who feel under pressure, who have to spend every element of their income as they have no discretionary income; $43 million from pensioners in this community. You can bet your bottom dollar that pensioners would have paid at least $10 million of that $43 million. These are the people whom this government turned its back on when it introduced the goods and services tax. It is important to make this point also. I noticed on Thursday—I had to miss part of question time—that, on the questions of further increases in the excise and the removal of indexation, the Treasurer was up there on his scrapers arguing that he was removing the `Labor Party's indexation'. Forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, but I have this memory of the advertising associated with the GST package—`Not a New Tax, A New Tax System'. There were changes in areas other than the goods and services tax. There were changes in the income tax area. There were changes in the company tax area. There were changes in relation to financial institutions duty and the like. A whole range of changes were made—all of which, I might say, we supported. There were those changes there. What was also there was the full-blown indexation of petrol taxes—every red cent. From the day the new tax package came down, the Liberal government firmly took over the ownership of every key element of it. They took over ownership of the indexation of petrol taxes—100 per cent ownership. They had the opportunity. They moved around billions of dollars in the taxation system. They had the chance, if they objected to the fact that this was an indexed arrangement, to deal with it. They chose not to. So they now have the full ownership of it, and the full ownership of the backflip. There are a few things this sorry episode has established without question. I want to take some time here today to outline them to the House. First, this is a backflip prompted by fear and without a shred of conviction in it. Secondly, this is not the end of the matter with regard to fuel taxation. Thirdly, whatever reputation this government had as an economic manager now lies in a smoking ruin. Fourthly, this episode has laid bare the mounting struggle over the Liberal leadership. Let me deal with each of these in turn, both in my remaining remarks in the five minutes I have on this bill and then in my remarks in support of the next bill. Firstly, let me deal with the question of conviction. This has been a backflip prompted by electoral fear and, like most things, will not last. In the beginning there was the untruth, `The goods and services tax will not increase the price of petrol for the ordinary motorist'—John Howard, Address to the Nation, 13 August, 1998. Secondly, John Howard, 18 August, 1998 on Radio 4T0:... the ordinary motorist will not pay any more for petrol ... They won't pay any more. It won't go up. The price at the pump will be the same and he'll have a tax cut. So in relation to petrol he's way ahead ... This is on 24 September 1998—Well, of course, under the tax plan there will be absolutely no increase at all—no increase at all—at the bowser for the purchase of petrol for use by the ordinary motorist. That is what our motorists were told. This was not even one of those little sleights of hand that we have seen in relation to the compensation arrangements for the pensioners, for example. `They will get four per cent compensation'—and then, in tiny little letters and not at all in the tax package—`and of course, we will claw back half of it.' None of that was in it. There was nothing of that hidden light under a bushel as far as these undertakings were concerned—they were clear, they were up front, they were oft repeated and they were simply untruths. Then, when he was comprehensively caught out on that issue, he went into an `I would love to keep my promise but it is impossible' defence. He said this to Alan Jones on 30 January, at the beginning of this year: ... having decided to spend $1.6 billion on roads to then go ahead and spend roughly the equivalent of that, or perhaps a little bit more on waiving this excise increase, to do that, well to do both would be financially irresponsible. That was not the first time of asking. We could go to 6 February, in question time: You cannot do both: you cannot responsibly put $1.6 billion into road funding and defer the increase—at the cost of $500 million annually, which adds up to about $2 billion over a four-year period—and maintain, according to the opposition, an even larger budget surplus than the government are delivering. At the end of the day, when you start running around as a political leader, you have to produce something that adds up and makes a bit of sense. Oh, good. On 22 January he said: Our position is that we looked at that before Christmas and we decided that the best way to help in the long term is to put $1.2 billion extra into road funding as that's more helpful. The people will take that into account but we have addressed that issue and that was the decision that we took and we think that, long term, is of more value. As Prime reported on 29 January, the government would have to spend around $600 million to cut prices by less than 2c a litre. The Prime Minister went on:But everyone knows that such a reduction could have disappeared overnight. Instead, we have chosen to make a long-term investment to last the country for decades—an investment to create better roads and thousands of jobs. This is extraordinary. It is not as though the Prime Minister defended this position of his with euphemisms or half-hearted sleights of hand. He was absolutely up front: `We have done it on roads; we will not do it on anything else; to do it on anything else would threaten interest rates and threaten the budget surplus.' As `great economic managers' he would say, the government could not possibly contemplate that. Well, the new contrite version of the Prime Minister lasted about 3½ seconds. He said: Let me make it clear that I was plainly wrong in not understanding some of the concerns held by the Australian people about the price of petrol and I acknowledge that.This policy was so well thought out that there was no press release, no documentation—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—No costings.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—no out year costings. This was policy on the run so fast that there was not even time to put letterhead in the printer! And finally, over the weekend, we had the newest, latest version. Remember that cunning plan I spoke about last week? Finally, the Prime Minister has been reading his Black Adder, because he thought he could fit his backflip up with a pair of ears and a tail and, hey-presto, it is a weasel! The backflip is now apparently a secret plan to rescue the economy—a secret, cunning plan to rescue the economy. Because, as he said on Sunday Sunrise:Given the slowing of the economy, the fiscal stimulus from the cut in petrol excise is quite welcome.This government is now administering—(Time expired)Bill read a first time. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with sessional order 104A the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills24904S29424904Bill presented by Mr Beazley.13:31:0024904Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—The Customs Tariff Amendment (Petrol Tax Cut) Bill 2001 is a bill for an act to amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to provide relief from the 1 February 2001 indexation of rates of customs duty applying to petrol. Standing orders do not allow bills altering taxation rates to be moved by anyone other than a minister. Therefore, this bill seeks to empower the House to pass a resolution to cut the rate of customs duty on imported fuel by the amount of the February adjustment—that is, 1.525 cents per litre. Of course, the act does exactly the same thing as the first act, so what I have had to say to that applies to this. I will say a few other things. The government is not administering in accordance with the principles of sensible, prudent fiscal management; it is administering according to the principles of high farce. Just to underscore that fact, compare and contrast the Prime Minister with the Deputy Prime Minister on the crucial question of where the money is coming from for the petrol promises. John Anderson said:It's coming out of the surplus and it certainly will impact on the surplus.And John Howard said:I said to my colleagues this means we're going to have a very tough ERC. And some things that we would otherwise ... [might] have contemplated doing we won't now be able to do.That last comment was in response to Peter Costello spitting the dummy halfway across Melbourne on Friday morning radio. The Treasurer himself was going further, saying that he is out to cut spending. Take a look at these three positions. `Out of the surplus' says Anderson; `Tough stuff at the ERC but no particular direction,' says the Prime Minister; and the Treasurer says, `Cutting spending to do this particular job.' I think it was the Australian which captured the punters' final word, after all this policy panic and incompetence, with the headline: `You'll pay—the PM's last say on petrol'. I love that headline from the Australian not only because it was so unexpected in the context of headlines in the Australian over the last couple of years but because it managed to sum up the vindictiveness and mean-spiritedness which have represented this government for a very lengthy period of time now and which people are now awake to. The bottom line is that, having shoplifted a petrol windfall from Australian motorists, when they are caught and promise to return it, they decide to pickpocket it from the very same Australians. The question this Prime Minister needs to answer is: which programs are to be abandoned to make Australians pay for their own petrol tax relief? Will it be pensioners? Will it be aged care funding? Will it be child care? Will it be families? Will it be education, innovation or science? Will it be Defence? What precisely is going to be cut here so that the Prime Minister can conform with what his Treasurer apparently is now going to require of him. I want you to cast your minds back to where we began on all of this, to what we now see in response from this government to the undeniable public pressure for lower fuel prices and the appalled attitude in the public to the way in which they have been misled by the government. We will take four-year figures. We have seen $1.6 billion spent on a local roads program—much of it a cheerio in National Party electorates. Secondly, we have seen the removal of—as we have argued for in these bills—this last increase in the duty in relation to fuel. That is in all probability over a four-year period about $1.3 billion. Then we have seen the ending of indexation, probably over the four-year period, approaching $2 billion. That is punching something like a $4 billion to $5 billion hole in the budget position. Contrast that with what would have been the case if he had dealt with the electorate honestly. If he had dealt with the electorate honestly two things would have been done: firstly, the actual reduction in excise with a GST being introduced would have in fact related to the impact of the GST, but it did not—it fell short of that; and, secondly, the removal of what would ostensibly by then be a lower price—a lower indexation associated with the goods and services tax—would have produced something south, not much south, of what he has had to do to remove the GST spike associated with what happened to the last indexation of duty on petrol. That would have satisfied the Australian public. The government read the Australian public penny lectures on their need to understand that the price of fuel was driven largely by what happens to international fuel prices. Every time a question was raised over the impact of government taxation measures, it was arrogantly brushed aside by an out-of-touch government as a product of ignorance. It was a product of pain; the government brushed it aside as a product of ignorance on the part of the Australian motoring public. As a result of that, the government have got no kudos at all for the backflip that they have done. If they had come out and said to the Australian public, `We have kept our promise to you on the GST impact on fuel; we have taken measures to ensure, as far as we can, that the taxation impost on you is no worse than you would have experienced prior to the application of the GST,' and if they had credibly followed that up with measures that indicated that that was true, then by far and a long way the bulk of public angst would have been directed at the oil companies, at OPEC and at international price rises. They would not have needed the government lecturing them regularly. But, because they knew that they had been treated so deceitfully by the government, the government was obliged to blow all fiscal prudence in finally resolving this matter. The government have created a situation for their budget that is far worse than would have been created with a bit of honesty. And that is why many of the people who follow these things closely are now putting the largest question mark over the government's role as economic managers. Frankly, the overblown and erroneous attitude out there that they are competent economic managers is coming under detailed scrutiny, and the government are being found wanting. They are being found wanting where it matters: by the people of Australia. That is where it matters.In this policy panic, if they want to know where they might get some of the resources to deal with it, they could probably start paying for some of that backflip with the $45,000 that has gone on the PR consultant's fee for wiping the smirk off Peter Costello's face. It worked for two question times, but it fell foul on the final one. It was back in its full horror by last Thursday. The Prime Minister might also contemplate now, as a gesture of at least some degree of restraint, abandoning the advertising campaign associated with the goods and services tax, a campaign which has led to such mockery in the Australian community. From the last estimates process in the Senate, I see that we are up to $485 million. We are headed for $500 million worth of taxpayers' funds spent on advertising this government's political wares—in this case, selling the pup that is the goods and services tax. The public is being `sold a pup' in the traditional usage of that term—in the policy sense, that pup is more like a Rottweiler, when it deals with the average family's living standards.The Prime Minister thinks he has now ruled this issue off, but he has not, because there are three outstanding issues and we are going to pursue each of them. Firstly, the government still refuse to come clean on the extent of the windfall. They hid the figures in the midyear review, and they will hide them again lest it become obvious that they are giving back less than they took in the first place. Labor will keep up the pressure to make the government admit the true extent of their tax grab from motorists. Secondly, the GST is still pushing apart the country-city divide in fuel prices. The AAA's petrol price survey of 19 February revealed that the city-country petrol price gap is higher than it was before the GST. The January gap was 12.8 per cent in WA and 8.9 per cent in Queensland alone. The GST will always be a tax on remoteness. For the first time ever, the government are taking more tax per litre of fuel from country motorists than from city motorists. Thirdly, there is the price of LPG. Since 1 July 2000, the 10 per cent GST is applied to the price of LPG. Since excise was not applied to LPG, there was no offsetting reduction in taxation to make way for the GST. The 10 per cent GST has gone straight on top of the LPG price. According to survey work conducted by the Victorian Fuel Price Monitoring Initiative, between June and September 2000 LPG auto gas prices increased in Melbourne by 6.4c and in country locations by an average of 5.1c. Average prices of LPG auto gas in Melbourne increased by more than 45 per cent over the 12 months from September 1999. LPG users are hurting, and this government has done precisely nothing for them. We will keep the pressure up. We have been scrutinising LPG as part of our petrol tax inquiry, and we will now redouble our attention to put the pressure on the government to back down yet again. While I am at it, I thank the members of my caucus for their participation in that inquiry; it has been magnificently effective. It has provided a magnificent forum for ordinary Australians to force politicians to listen. As a result of that, at least some credit is due to them for the government's decision to finally roll down the limousine windows far enough to hear at least a few shouts of pain associated with this problem. The government derided the Labor Party's petrol price inquiry as a toothless tiger, but it turns out that we were the ones putting the tiger in the tank on this issue, and we will keep up that pressure. What this episode establishes beyond any doubt is that the government's pretensions towards superior economic management are stone dead. Like the parrot in the Monty Python skit, we are dealing with ex-economic managers. They stand condemned by their own words—words such as those used by the Prime Minister about the impossibility of doing roads and of giving any relief on petrol prices. What was irresponsible a few short days ago is now responsible. What rubbish! Over the last few days and weeks, we have seen something far more profound and disturbing, that is, the impact of the goods and services tax on the economy. Remember that this is a government which came into office with an economy that the Prime Minister himself admitted was better than good in parts: low inflation, falling interest rates, falling unemployment, high growth. This was his inheritance, much as he likes to pretend otherwise. What was his big idea? A GST. Now the verdict is in. The GST has been swinging like a wrecking ball through the Australian economy since last July, smashing everything in its path. Interest rates were coming down; it pushed interest rates up last year. Unemployment is now up; employment is down. The building sector has been hit to leg. Business investment is falling dramatically. Retail sales are anaemic, and there has been the highest quarterly inflation in a decade. What a record. They blame the US economy, but it is the government that are to blame, and that is why these bills are needed.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the member is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101.Bill read a first time. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—In accordance with sessional order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Statements by Members249062490613:45:0024906Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Last week, unfortunately, in Illawarra Road, Marrickville, around the corner from my electorate office, there was a shooting which resulted in the death of a young man. I wish to send condolences from me and the community to that young man's family. I also wish to place on record my outrage at Kerry Chikarovski's comment that, `You can't go shopping in Marrickville these days without the risk of being shot.' This ignorant, failed leader from the North Shore of Sydney should stay there. My local community are outraged at the slur which has been placed upon them. Marrickville is a community of battlers, it is true. It is made up of people who have come from different places around the world to make it their home and they have done their best to build up the community. The Marrickville chamber of commerce, the main street committee and Marrickville Municipal Council have all put an enormous amount of effort into building up that local shopping centre and making it a place which is enjoyable to go to and a place in which I am proud to live and have my electorate office. The slur put by this member for Lane Cove shows just how failed she is. This is a leader of the opposition who, on a law and order issue, stuffs it up. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member's time has expired. R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—She should be put out of her misery as leader.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Grayndler!2490713:47:0024907Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I rise today to add my congratulations to the citizens of Gosford who were awarded Gosford City's Australia Day awards, in particular Gail McGrath, who was named Gosford City's 2001 citizen of the year at a recent ceremony. Gail is well known in the community for her work with charities, particularly in mobilising the community to help raise a large amount of money towards the Beth Tooby appeal. Beth was the young girl who had to go to America for a very rare operation. Until the federal government stepped in and provided money for that operation, Gail was the driving force behind the community raising that money. I also want to offer my congratulations to the young person of the year for Gosford City, Douglas McFarland, an 18-year-old highland dancer who has enjoyed great success nationally and overseas. Also, in the short time I have, I want to mention some of the other award winners on that night: Mr Bryce Matthews for his support with war veterans and their families; John Moriarty for his involvement with cricket; and Ms Beryl Owen for service to the disabled. The community service award went to Nada Potter, who has been the driving force behind the inter-agency centre at Springfield in my electorate and well deserves her award. (Time expired)2490713:48:0024907Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Recently, this government announced, with a lot of fanfare, the Western Sydney orbital, which is to be put on exhibition and, it is hoped, built by 2007. Like all announcements by this government, when you have a look at the environmental impact statement, it is all announcement and no substance. In fact, I started to read through the statement and found that the people in my electorate are going to be very adversely affected. Each time one of my constituents uses that road when it is completed, they are going to have a toll of at least $5. For a two-car family, with a husband and wife going to work, that will be $10 a day each, which is $100 a week for the family—$4,800 a year if you are working 48 weeks of the year.The other thing I found rather disturbing when I started to look at the environmental impact statement concerns the local service roads—what we call feeder roads—that are going to be ingress and egress for the orbital road. I am now finding that Horsley Drive, which goes through most of my electorate and was always regarded as a local road, is now going to take over 52 per cent more traffic because of the orbital. I also found that Victoria Road, which is supposed to be the main feeder road and the express road going to the orbital, is no longer even mentioned in the EIS.I am a little disturbed over the fact that the government has not come clean on how it is going to fund this highway. On behalf of my constituents, I want to ask why this road is going to be a toll road when it will be the only toll road in the Australian national road system. I appeal to all of the people in Western Sydney and south-west Sydney to read the environmental impact statement.2490713:50:0024907Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—Today, I rise to present a petition on behalf of 105 electors in the division of Blair. In part, the petition reads:Your petitioners therefore request the House to call on the Government to limit further damaging action by the Commonwealth Bank and other banks and to require all banks to honour their social obligation by improving face to face services in rural and suburban areas. I think all members would support this kind of thing. I do in particular, because in my area there are something like six banks that are closing. They include banks in Nanango, Kilcoy, Brassall and Laidley. Now, it seems, the Colonial State Bank in Brassall is going to come under the hammer. Those are all branches of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. In addition, the Boonah branch of the Commonwealth Bank is closing. There are six banks in the immediate area of Blair that have come under the impact of this attack by the Commonwealth Bank on banking services. I would like to finish by reflecting the words of one of the signatories to the petition, Stan Elmer of Nanango. He has written:I refer to the CBA Bank closure at Nanango and say, `GOOD—!JUST GREAT—! They have gone. I trusted this bank for many years (60) and found that the bank when `put to the test' was found to be `sadly wanting'.I think all members find that currently banks are sadly wanting. We have several, however, that seem to have seen the light, among them ANZ, which are setting up a new regional division again. I welcome that and I hope that they go on and do something about honouring their social obligations. (Time expired)2490813:52:0024908Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—One of the irritating things about the Ryan by-election, which is to be held on 17 March, is just how totally unnecessary this half-a-million-dollar by-election is. The people of Ryan had been to the polls on 17 February in the state election, they are off again on 17 March and in six months time they will be back in a general election. It is as if the Queensland Liberal Party have an attitude that the people of Ryan have nothing better to do with their time other than to present themselves at polling booths in the western suburbs to exercise their democratic obligations. The big question, however, which remains unanswered in the public debate is: why are we having this completely unnecessary by-election? The answer is the Prime Minister and the former Minister for Defence have had a personal spat. The Prime Minister said he wanted the member for Flinders to become the new defence minister. The former Minister for Defence said, `Well, if that's the case, Prime Minister, then I'm out of here altogether.' What is the result of that? A half-a-million-dollar by-election—an unnecessary half-a-million-dollar by-election—one which the people of Ryan are most upset about. Maybe half a million dollars just represents a bit of loose change for the Liberal Party establishment in Brisbane. After all, their historical attitude to Ryan has been a bit like the inheritance of the family estate in the Scottish highlands—the sort of thing that you pass on from one decent chap to another, elections being a mere inconvenience occasionally occurring every several years or so. However Labor's candidate Leonie Short polls in that by-election on 17 March, it will be as a result of hard work, not a sense of entitlement. (Time expired)2490813:53:0024908St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—On Friday night I attended the opening of the 124th annual Tenterfield Show, and I would like to congratulate the President, David Calwell, and his committee, including the Secretary, Di Benson, on putting together another great show for our agricultural areas. People have heard me speak in this place on the importance of our agricultural shows and the fact that they do put on display, for everybody to see, those products and those innovative new businesses that are operating in country Australia. Also I had the pleasure of receiving, meeting and talking with the Miss Show Girl contestants, including Tammi Maher, who was the winner of the Tenterfield Miss Show Girl competition for 2001. Listening to her speech on Friday night, I realised just what talent we have in country Australia, especially listening to her hopes and aspirations of where she wants to go in the future and her absolute commitment to regional Australia and to agriculture. These shows are not possible, of course, without sponsorship and the sponsorship of the Tenterfield Show was extraordinary: over 200 sponsors came out and were able to put money forward to be able to support—(Time expired)2490913:55:0024909Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I present this petition to you and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament. This petition of 47 citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the lack of bulk-billing general practitioners in the Morisset, Cooranbong and Dora Creek areas. This is further to the petition of 476 citizens which I presented last week. This situation disadvantages aged pensioners, low income earners and the unemployed who cannot afford up-front payment for medical services. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to increase the Medicare rebate for doctors' services and provide other incentives to encourage general practitioners to bulk-bill. In 1996, when the coalition was first elected, 80.6 per cent of all GP services were bulk-billed. The average figure today is 77.6 per cent. I and my Hunter colleagues have met with the Hunter Urban Division of General Practice to discuss the decline in bulk-billing, which is down to 60 per cent in the Hunter; doctor shortages; and other issues concerning health services in the Hunter. We will continue to work together to ensure that our constituents' health is not put at risk because of the ideological dismantling of Medicare by this current government. I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate Chris Osborne, Des Hughes and all the members of SMARTs—Support Medicare and Retain Totally Bulk Billing—on the effort that they have made to pursue this issue both locally and nationally. I say `nationally' because Des was interviewed about the long-term viability of bulk-billing on the 7.30 Report in early January. (Time expired)2490913:57:0024909Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I rise to highlight the couldn't-care-less arrogance of the Beattie state Labor government. My constituent Mr George Beauchamp of Upper Mount Gravatt is a retired man in his 60s. He has had major heart surgery and does not need the stress of taking on the state government over the impact of the new South-East Busway, which runs just metres from his house. He has been offered less than $5,000 compensation for this interruption to his life. He has had extensive damage done to his property during the construction stage. Now he stares at an eight-metre wall, just 1.5 metres from his house, which blocks out the sun and the breeze. George Beauchamp would have been better off if in fact they had put the busway right through his house. They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars against him. Why not a few tens of thousands of dollars for him? He has lost almost $70,000 off the value of his house and the state government will not compensate him for this. His state member, Judy Spence, will not return calls and the Premier's office and the transport minister's office have labelled him a looney, briefing the media accordingly. I am sure that Mr `Dad' Kerrigan was called a looney but he saved his castle. No-one is listening, no-one cares and to label him a looney is code for `Go away and forget we've ruined your life'. George Beauchamp now faces, 24 hours a day, carbon monoxide fumes and other particulates from dirty diesel buses putrifying his lungs—and the Queensland Labor government could not care. They have a three-year term with a record majority. Imagine how arrogant they will be in the years ahead and how many other good, decent Queenslanders are going to get ditched by the Australian Labor Party along the way.2490913:58:0024909Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I am delighted to inform the House that on Australia Day this year Mr Danny Lumby of Heathcote was one of three Victorian ambulance officers awarded the inaugural and prestigious Ambulance Service Medal. This award reflects service over and above the call of duty. The ASM reflects an outstanding contribution to the Heathcote community and compliments Danny's award for bravery in 1979, when he rescued an injured miner from a mine-shaft. Danny Lumby has a fine record of community involvement in the Heathcote district, including many years as a board member and chairman of McIvor Health and Community Services. He was instrumental in saving this hospital from the savage cuts and closure of several small hospitals around Victoria during the years of the former Kennett state government. He also conducts first-aid courses for various individuals and groups when he is off duty. Danny Lumby is ably supported by his wife, Margaret, who in the early days voluntarily manned the ambulance radio whilst he was on duty. Danny and Margaret Lumby are fine examples of the spirit of the Heathcote community, and I know that all honourable members on both sides of the House will join with me in extending our heartiest congratulations to them on the occasion of Danny receiving this inaugural ASM. 2491013:59:0024910Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—The published remarks of the Frankston City Mayor attacking the Howard government's record on drug response are both reckless and ill informed, and highlight how far removed he has become from the issues in our community. The government's Tough on Drugs programs put half a billion dollars into our communities to help tackle this very difficult social and health issue. In our city alone more than $100,000 is made available to PenDAP, the Peninsula Drug and Alcohol Program, as well as $65,000 to artistic media providing education on drugs. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A the time for members statements has concluded.Questions Without Notice249102491014:00:0024910Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, do you recall predicting just over three months ago, when you upgraded your economic growth forecast to four per cent, that we will soon see `an unemployment rate with a five in front of it'? In light of today's ANZ job advertisement data showing the largest year-on-year decline since September 1991, and the 87,000 full-time jobs lost over the last four months, do you stand by your prediction that you will achieve `an unemployment rate with a five in front of it'?24910Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—What I have always said about unemployment is that this government came to office when I believe it was 8.7 per cent and that under this government it has fallen to 6.7 per cent. Under this government, nearly 800,000 people who did not have work under the Labor Party have been put back into jobs. I have also said that it is important that we continue to run a strong economy and that if you continued to grow the economy at four per cent you would continue to eat into the unemployment rate at about half a per cent per annum, which is what has happened over the last four years as the economy has grown by four per cent. That is the point I made: if you continued to grow the economy at four per cent, the unemployment rate would continue to reduce. So how do you grow an economy at a strong growth rate? You keep the budget in balance, something Labor could never do. The last five budgets of the Australian Labor Party cumulated a deficit of $80 billion. The only trick that the then finance minister had in the bag, when he was running a $10 billion deficit, was to go around, as he did during that 1996 election, and claim that the budget was in surplus. He went around during the 1996 election and said that the budget was in surplus when it was $10 billion in deficit. The second thing you have to do is to keep interest rates low, which this government has also put in place with a new agreement.DT4Crean, Simon, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition apparently interjects in relation to interest rates.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will not respond to interjections from either side.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The home mortgage interest rate today is at 7½ per cent. The lowest it was under Labor, when they went out of office, was 10½ per cent—$3,000 a year more. The third thing you have to do is to lock in low inflation, which this government is doing. The contribution to growth from the new taxation system has been that it has cut company tax, capital gains tax and income tax, abolished wholesale sales tax and will abolish stamp duties and financial institutions duty on 1 July. Those are the things that create a growing economy, those are the things that create real jobs and it is the coalition that stands for job creation. 2491114:03:0024911Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, for the benefit of those opposite, is foot-and-mouth disease the world's most frightening disease of cattle, sheep, pigs and goats? Would the minister inform the House of the continuing situation of the outbreak of this disease in the United Kingdom? What further measure has been taken to stop this disease from spreading to Australia, and how are we assisting British authorities?24911Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—May I thank the honourable member for Page. I certainly can confirm that foot-and-mouth disease is perhaps the most feared disease of animals around the world. Whilst it is present in countries around the globe, particularly in Asia, parts of South America and Africa and, at times, in Europe, and alerts and precautions are constantly in place, the outbreak in the United Kingdom has certainly attracted international attention and causes particular concerns because of the large number of movements of people and cargo between the UK and the rest of the world.Since I reported to the House on this issue last week, the situation in the UK has continued to deteriorate. Several more farms have been identified with the disease, and now it is clear that it has spread to Wales and Scotland. There has also been a case confirmed in Northern Ireland and, as a result of cattle moving from a property in Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, some cattle have been destroyed in Ireland. There have been further reports about outbreaks in other countries in Europe. So far those are not confirmed, but obviously the government is monitoring the situation in relation to those reports as well. The United Kingdom has closed all abattoirs for a further two weeks and the movement of all animals around the United Kingdom, except for poultry and horses, has been banned. In addition to the measures that have been taken overseas, Australia has upgraded its own security, particularly at the airports, so that we can take every possible precaution to ensure that this disease does not come to Australia. In particular, all passengers who have been to the United Kingdom in the last three months will be directed to the red channel at the customs border point. In particular, those people who have been near farms or in agricultural areas where the disease has been in outbreak will be subject to detailed scrutiny.I accept the fact that this will cause some inconvenience to passengers. Reports suggest that there are delays at the airports, particularly at the early morning time slots, when a lot of flights are arriving from European ports. I apologise for that inconvenience, but this is so important that we cannot accept any degree of compromise. It is absolutely essential that the level of scrutiny be detailed. In particular, evidence of straw, dirt or anything that is likely to carry the disease into Australia will result in disinfestation and processes being taken to ensure that any suspect goods are seized. All products that could potentially carry foot-and-mouth disease have been banned entry, and questions will be asked particularly about dairy products and the like.We estimate that these measures will mean that about one million extra people will be put through the red channel at airports in one year. Obviously, that will require significant resources. The government has increased the number of people available for border patrol activities at the airports—almost double, in fact, in the last five years. We are so far managing these matters by rostering extra shifts, but I welcome the Prime Minister's assurance that additional resources will be provided if required. I should also point out to the House that these measures are not likely to be short term. It is inevitably going to go on for many months. We will certainly be continuing this high level of surveillance until the UK is free of the disease, and the international authorities once again certify the UK to be free of foot-and-mouth disease. That will be many months and could, indeed, extend to a period of years. We need to have a major national effort to protect ourselves from this horrific disease. We feel for UK farmers and the UK economy, but the reality is that that makes us all the more determined to ensure that our quarantine measures are able to address any challenge and that Australia remains free of this disease, as we have been for the last 130 years. 2491214:08:0024912Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—My question is to the Minister for Defence representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Minister, have you seen today's building approval figures, showing the largest year-on-year decline in building approvals since at least 1984? Isn't this further evidence that your GST has mugged the economy?24912Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The government has, of course, seen today's building approval figures which, incidentally, show that approvals, which have been down in the previous quarters in trend terms, appear to have turned. It is always important that, when looking at building approvals and building construction generally, you take into account one-off and transitional factors. Forward indicators in the housing sector, such as building approvals and finance approvals, suggest that the sector is stabilising and returning to growth during 2001.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—One-off factors?CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yes, there were one-off factors because, prior to July of last year, I believe that construction had reached its highest percentage in GDP terms on record. Of course, the reason for that was a pull forward as a result of taxation changes, which is what the government said. If you had a pull forward—that is, these figures were greater in March and June—then, consequently, you will have a downturn in September and December, which is what the government predicted and what has actually occurred. Once we get over the transitional factors, we believe that housing construction will start to strengthen, as has been shown by the approval figures which were released today. It will continue to strengthen particularly in a climate of low interest rates. Anybody who is worried about the house building industry or housing construction will support low interest rates. Apart from the previous year, interest rates under this government are now at a 30-year low—interest rates which were never achieved under the Australian Labor Party, which had interest rates at 17½ per cent in the late 1980s.DT4Crean, Simon, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition interjects. I say, where there is no understanding there is no conscience. He understands so little about economic policy that he has no conscience about being part of 17½ per cent interest rates. Imagine what that was doing to the young families of Australia as they watched their interest rates go to 17½ per cent. Anybody who wants to get up here and talk about building construction will commit themselves to a low interest rate environment. I say that to the shadow minister opposite, because I have never heard her champion the policies that would give low interest rates in this country. As I recall, she was out complaining not so recently that the government was not spending enough money on this or enough money on that. The people who want to have low interest rates in this country will be supporting, not opposing, good economic policy and will be giving their support to those things that will keep the Australian economy growing strongly on low interest rates, which is a policy of the coalition government.2491214:12:0024912Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I have a question for the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the results of the January retail trade figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics? What does this survey indicate about the pace of economic growth in Australia?24913Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Retail trade figures for January were released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics today, showing that retail trade increased 0.9 per cent for the month of January and 7.2 per cent through the year to January. This comes after a 0.9 per cent increase in December and, overall, the combined increase in the two months points to considerable momentum in retail trade over the Christmas-New year period. Interestingly enough, there appears to have been some adjustment again, with recreational goods retailing recording the largest increase, largely reversing falls back in October, November and December, and department stores recording decreases unwinding the increases recorded in previous months. Overall, the retail trade figures for January indicate a strengthening in retail trade in December and January, something that the government welcomes. Again, in relation to retail trade we saw massive transitional factors occurring back in July last year. There was a massive bring forward during the month of June as people sought to make purchases prior to the introduction of the GST, and a put back after the introduction of GST for the month of July, but a gradual unwinding over the course of the year. A point I made in relation to the building construction industry, that the figures in the national accounts over the last two quarters will have large one-off and transitional factors. It is a question of looking through those, as we will be able to do, I believe, in future quarters to get some better picture, absent those one-off and transitional factors, in relation to where the economy is going. Households have benefited from large income tax cuts from 1 July of this year. We have had a recent interest rate cut and pensions have been increased as part of the compensation flowing from the new taxation system. All of that will be beneficial for consumption in future months. I have already remarked on the fact that the housing sector, which had a significant bring forward in the March and June quarters and declines in September's and December's, should be supported by rising housing affordability. Another thing that perhaps we have not dwelt on enough in this House is the government's First Home Owners Scheme. The government introduced from 1 July 2000 a first home owners scheme of up to $7,000 for young Australians who had not owned a home before—in fact, any Australians who had not owned a home before. I want to make it clear, because I have seen some of the states passing this off as their own scheme, that the First Home Owners Scheme is funded out of GST revenues by an agreement and implemented by the Commonwealth government. If it were not for the Commonwealth government, the First Home Owners Scheme would not have come about. It was never put in place by Labor governments nor was it put in place by state governments. It was a first home owners scheme which came about as a result of the new taxation system, and it has been warmly welcomed, particularly by young Australians. The Labor Party flips and flops on these issues, I have noticed. Last night we saw the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the government's tax changes had been a dampener on the economy. DT4Crean, Simon, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—And one of their leading intellectuals intervenes in support of that proposition from the front bench now. During 2000, the Labor Party opposed the government's tax package because they said it was too generous and unaffordable. The whole Labor Party attack during 2000 was that it was a fiscal stimulus which was going to lead to overheating. For example, Mr Beazley in a press release entitled `Who do you think you are kidding' of 3 February 2000 had this to say:The economy is now in its ninth year of expansion. Most economists recognise...growth...has been unbalanced, driven by debt-fuelled consumption, not investment or net exports.So you will presumably be pleased at the moment that consumption is coming off and exports are booming—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Booming?CT4Mr COSTELLO—Exports are up 21 per cent over the course of the year which, in anybody's language, even the member for Hotham's, is booming exports. If 21 per cent is not booming exports, I would like to see what they are. Yes, booming is the fact, and no amount of interjection takes away from a 21 per cent increase in exports over the year. Then the Leader of the Opposition had this to say: ...the net fiscal stimulus in this tax package of more than $6 billion in the first year alone, and around $20 billion over three years, runs the risk of fuelling consumption and overheating the economy.All through the year 2000, the government was being attacked for fuelling consumption and overheating the economy. The Labor Party was against the government's income tax cuts because they said they were too large. That was the attack that the Labor Party had on them. Now of course the Labor Party wants to run the completely contrary argument and say that the new tax system was not stimulatory enough. The new tax system put more money back in the pockets of Australians. With the largest income tax cuts in Australian history, we can now see why that was a good policy. We can see why the Labor Party was wrong to oppose it and we can see the complete opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition who opposes everything the government does but on completely contrary and opposite grounds simultaneously.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—It does seem that the Governor of the Reserve Bank agreed with me.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.2491414:19:0024914Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. In the light of your public warning to the Prime Minister and to your colleagues on Friday morning of the need for `a tight spending budget' and given the Prime Minister's acknowledgment of the need to `reorder priorities', can you give a guarantee that the promised $1 billion welfare reform package will be exempted and protected from any budget cuts?DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—What would you know about a tight budget?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have not as yet recognised the Treasurer because it seemed that the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation believed the question had been addressed to him.24914Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The government last week cut taxes in relation to petrol excise —DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You mean you honoured a promise not to—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has defied the chair for the third time.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Last week the government cut taxes by cutting the petrol excise by 1.5c a litre, and I think it is a decision that the Australian public have welcomed. In addition to that, the government did something which the Labor Party could never have done and that was it announced the end of automatic indexation in relation to petrol—again, a decision that the public have welcomed. Both the Prime Minister and I have made the point that having cut taxes means that coming into this budget round, the government will have to take a tight rein on expenditure and will have to target measures accordingly. I am asked the question about the welfare statement. As I recall, the government has never put a sum, any sum at all, on the amount of the reforms in relation to welfare. The fact that the Labor Party asserts it has, of course, does not make it fact; that is one of the Labor Party's old tricks. As to what will be done in the budget, and I will be giving this answer a lot between now and the end of May, I can assure the House, the government will not speculate on the measures it will be announcing in the budget. You can wait until budget night when all will be revealed.2491414:22:0024914Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, would you inform the House of the success of the government's child-care policies for Australian families, particularly within my electorate of Makin?24914Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I would like to thank the member for Makin. I know she has a very keen interest not only in child care but also in family values. I am delighted to inform the House that the child-care policies that the coalition government has introduced have meant that child care is far more affordable today and there is far higher usage than there ever has been. A leading Sydney paper we all know, the Sunday Telegraph, published an article yesterday headlined `100,000 more join child care'. This is good news for all families and of course particularly those children who can now get into funded Commonwealth programs. Why is that? It is because there has been a significant increase in child-care benefit. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. In the first four years of the coalition government, $4 billion was spent on child care, which was a 30 per cent increase on the previous four years when the ALP was in government. In the next four years we are planning to spend $5.6 billion. What we have done, of course, is to make child care easier to access by reducing the complexity of the system that was put into place by the Labor Party. The best thing is that we have seen that long day care is up 22 per cent. Now 367,000 children are in long day care. In family day care there has been an increase of 14 per cent, 95,000 children, and outside school hours there is an increase of 16 per cent, or 124,000. This means that not only is child care becoming more affordable but also there is greater utilisation, particularly for all those many private child care centres and family day care centres right throughout this country. Further good news is that at the next indexation point for child-care benefit we will be increasing it by 5.8 per cent, and that means that there will be a $7 increase to those receiving the maximum benefit, going from $122 to $129. You have to ask yourself: what is Labor's policy? We know they are policy lazy, that they do not have a policy on child care. The only policy they had was the lowest common denominator, which was scare tactics. The Leader of the Opposition claimed on 24 June in a doorstop interview that the GST would massively increase the cost of child care. He was wrong on that. The Leader of the Opposition claimed on 1 August last year that people are now paying more for child care. He was wrong on that as well. What we are seeing is a far greater utilisation and child care being more affordable. That is because this government is listening and acting. Not only are we building stronger communities but we are building stronger families through our sensible child-care policies.2491514:25:0024915Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, in relation to the 20 March pension adjustment, do you still stand by your assertion yesterday that `there is no clawback'? Are you aware of this Department of Family and Community Services document which states:The indexation adjustments to pensions and adult allowance rates for 20 March 2001 will have the additional issue of clawback. Two per cent of the existing rate will be deducted from the normal CPI adjustment.Prime Minister, who is telling the truth, you or the department? And hasn't this document exposed your meanness to the most vulnerable in our community?24915Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part of the question is no. Perhaps I can take the Leader of the Opposition through the facts, as distinct from deliberately provocative and scaremongering rhetoric which can only be hurtful and damaging to vulnerable people in the community. I am certain that the expression `clawback' is being used in internal documents. That does not automatically make it a correct expression. I believe that in these circumstances the use of the word `clawback' is clumsy shorthand for something that cannot properly be described as an act of recovering money, which is the understanding that I think should be given to clawback in circumstances such as this. What has happened is that on 1 July last year a pension increase of four per cent was paid. It was made perfectly clear that that represented not only a two per cent real increase but also an advance on a future increase. In relation to the adjustment in March, all that has occurred is that there has been an avoidance of a double payment. Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition and others may laugh at that, but the very document to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred contains the statement that the action has been taken to avoid double-dipping. That is the language that is used by the very document to which he has made reference. I will be circulating for the benefit of honourable members, and also for others in this building who are interested, a little chart that shows what has happened in relation to the basic pension rate. It shows that in June last year it was $372 and that as a result of the changes the government has introduced it will be $402. It also shows that, if you had just had the CPI plus the MTAWE increases and no tax reform measures, it would only have risen from $372 to $394.10. Interestingly enough, it shows that, if you had applied the policies of the former government, the Labor government, of CPI indexation only and no tax reform, you would have gone from $358.70 to a total of $379.39. In other words, there is a difference from $402 from the coalition to $379.39. Who is short-changing, who is mugging, the pensioners now?The reality is that we paid a four per cent increase on 1 July. Properly using the expression, it is not being clawed back. All that is occurring is that—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga!ZD4Mr HOWARD—as foreshadowed at the time—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga is defying the chair.ZD4Mr HOWARD—as foreshadowed at the time, the action being taken merely avoids a double payment. There has been no clawback, there has been no deduction and there has been no deceit. The only people who deserve to be criticised on this issue are the members of the Australian Labor Party who are deliberately scaring older people for their own political benefit.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I seek leave to table this document which has the word `clawback' in it about half a dozen times.Leave not granted.2491614:30:0024916Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, would you advise the House what additional measures are available to governments to further lower fuel prices for motorists.24916Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Herbert for his question. With a notice that was given in this parliament last Thursday, from midnight Thursday the government reduced petrol excise by 1.5c a litre. The government has also given notice that it will be introducing legislation to abolish the Labor Party's automatic indexation of petrol prices. That legislation will be passed prior to August when, if we were not to pass that legislation, the Labor Party's legislation for automatic indexation would take effect. I said in the House on Thursday and I say again: petrol excise was cut not for the benefit of oil companies but for the benefit of motorists, and the government expects that benefit to be passed on to motorists. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission did extensive monitoring from midnight on Thursday night and throughout the course of Friday and reported that petrol prices in metropolitan areas fell on average by 1.7c per litre between 1 March and 2 March. We welcome the fact that that cut was passed on to motorists and we make it entirely clear to retailers and oil companies that we expect it to be passed on permanently to consumers, who are supposed to benefit.On the weekend, the Prime Minister made the perfectly justifiable point that, if they so wished, the premiers of Australia are in a position to reduce the cost of petrol to motorists. On radio in Sydney today, Premier Carr made the extraordinary claim that this could not be done; that the premiers were no longer being paid revenue compensation. He claimed that it stopped in the middle of last year. I want to go through this in some detail. Prior to 1997, the states had business franchise fees taxing petrol. When the High Court struck those down, at the request of the states the Commonwealth levied 8.3c per litre on the petrol price, collected for and on behalf of the states and paid back to them. When we moved to the new taxation system, the Commonwealth and the states entered into an agreement by which the Commonwealth would pay to the states full revenue for all of the taxes to be abolished—financial institutions duties, bank accounts debits tax, stamp duties on mortgages and marketable securities—and as a term of that would pay to the states the equivalent of the revenue replacements, the equivalent of the business franchise fees, the equivalent of 8.3c per litre. That money has been paid to the states under that agreement from 1 July. The only state which takes that money and refunds it to motorists is the state of Queensland, and it does so only after Mr Beattie tried to abolish it and was caught by the Commonwealth government. Let me give the House the figures. The New South Wales government is paid $707 million in revenue replacements—the equivalent of 8.3c per litre. Out of that $707 million, it refunds $47 million to motorists; it pockets $660 million. It has the capacity to refund to the motorists of New South Wales 7.2c per litre. I go to Victoria. Many of us remember Premier Bracks when he was a Labor Party staffer up here, working for Mr O'Keefe, the member for Burke, I believe—probably in the days when the Labor Party increased the petrol excise by 5c a litre in the 1993 budget, I think, but I would have to go back and have a look at that. On Friday, Premier Bracks was saying to the Prime Minister, `You should be cutting excise. This is something that the federal government should have been doing for a long period of time.' Let me make this suggestion to Premier Bracks: if you are really interested in Victorian motorists, you have the capacity to reduce by 6.6c a litre the petrol excise in Victoria. Victoria is paid $507 million as the revenue replacement, the equivalent of 8.3c a litre, and Premier Bracks, who is so concerned about Victorian motorists, refunds $38 million out of $507 million. He has the capacity to pass on another $469 million or 6.6c a litre.So the Prime Minister was entirely correct on the weekend. The states are still paid the revenue replacements. They are paid the equivalent of 8.3c a litre. I notice that the Labor Party are now intervening in support of the Labor premiers keeping the petrol excise—aren't you? The truth of the matter is that the Labor Party do not care about the petrol excise; they will do anything to defend a fellow member of the Australian Labor Party. They are not interested in this, because the Premier of New South Wales has the capacity to return that money to the motorists of New South Wales and the Premier of Victoria has the capacity to return that to the motorists of Victoria. To those premiers who want to run around and grandstand on the issue, we say very clearly and very simply: put your money where your mouth is.2491714:38:0024917Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall saying last week, in relation to pensions and benefits: The Government isn't cutting anything.Prime Minister, are you aware of this internal departmental document confirming that approximately 170,000 young allowees and family tax benefit recipients who receive rent assistance will have a cut in their overall payment—that is, an actual dollar cut to their payment? Prime Minister, hasn't this document exposed your meanness towards the most vulnerable in the community?24917Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have not seen that particular document but I certainly do remember making that statement. I will check the context again but, from recollection, it was in relation to the claims that you had made and some reports that appeared in the papers about the issue raised in the previous question by the Leader of the Opposition. It is true that, through the operation of the automatic indexation of the rent allowance threshold, which has been going on since 1993 and was introduced by the former government, there are adjustments made from time to time to the rental allowance. That has always been the case and there is nothing new about that, and there will not be anything new about that in relation to March. Those adjustments have been a function of the system since it was introduced and, according to the advice that I have received, none of the policies that we have introduced in relation to the GST or associated matters have in any way affected the operation of the threshold. Obviously, if you index a threshold and your rent does not go up, you can be affected. That was the case under the Labor Party and it remains the case under this government. 2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—I seek leave to table the document.Leave not granted. 2491814:40:0024918Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Will the minister inform the House of the results of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission price monitoring of petrol prices over the weekend? Minister, under the new pricing regime, how much tax revenue does each state receive?24918Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank the member for McEwen for her keen interest in this matter. I can inform the House that the ACCC collected price data for unleaded petrol, diesel and LPG over the weekend. Prices were collected twice on Saturday and once on Sunday. The data from 2,500 sites in five capital cities indicates that prices have fallen by more than 1.5c per litre, the excise reduction, as competition and lower oil prices have also flowed through to the price of petrol. The ACCC, however, advise me that, on the monitoring information so far, the full benefits of the excise reduction have been passed through to consumers. For the information of the member for McEwen, price falls in some parts of rural and regional Australia will only start to come through this week as service stations receive the cheaper petrol into their tanks. Excise is applied at the refinery gate, so some country petrol stations with larger reserves may not be able to pass on the full benefit until they receive their new deliveries. The same principle applies whether the excise goes up or goes down. Therefore, the ACCC will be monitoring 1,500 sites in 150 towns across regional and rural Australia this week to ensure that the excise reduction is passed on to consumers in full.Compared to 1 March, as of 9 a.m. today petrol in Adelaide is 2.4c a litre cheaper; it is 89.3c. In Melbourne petrol is 3.3c a litre cheaper. The price is 87.8c, of which 6.6c a litre goes directly to Steve Bracks. In Sydney petrol is 3.9c a litre cheaper, but Sydney has the highest petrol prices in the country at 93.5c a litre. How ironic it is that Bob Carr gets the most tax—7.2c per litre. In Brisbane there has been the biggest fall in petrol prices in the country. Brisbane petrol is 4.9c a litre cheaper at 82.9c a litre. As of last night in Perth petrol is 4c per litre cheaper at 90.7c.DT4Crean, Simon, MPDK6Mr HOCKEY—You have got to love the member for Hotham—he is very handy at the most appropriate moments. I took the opportunity to have a look at the Customs Tariff Amendment (Petrol Tax Cut) Bill 2001. This is the bill that the Leader of the Opposition was using as a fly swatter in the House—and members will remember this—talking about how the Labor Party were going to cut excise. The intriguing thing about that is that you have a look at that bill and you say to yourself, `What's missing?' I will tell you what is missing: what is missing is price monitoring; what is missing is the protection of the ACCC.Opposition members interjecting—DK6Mr HOCKEY—The Labor Party throw their hands up in the air and guffaw. We have in place consumer protection to ensure that the price benefits go straight through to consumers. The Labor Party are so policy lazy that, when they make a proposal, they do not bother with consumer protection; they worry about their mates in the oil companies getting the benefit. We will fine companies up to $10 million if they do not pass through to consumers the full benefit of the excise reduction. The policy-lazy Labor Party would never come up with that sort of consumer protection. 2491914:46:0024919Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, yesterday in a press release do you recall saying:There is no clawback, there is no deduction from pensions real or otherwise.Minister, what are you going to say to the 6,649 mobile home and caravan park residents in your electorate of Richmond on 20 March when clawback cuts their rent assistance?24919Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I am always glad when the member for Grayndler shows an interest in the electorate of Richmond, because the only interest he does show there—particularly in those people who choose to live in mobile home parks—is to scare them, as his question has no validity whatsoever as he masquerades as a caravan park tenant. The simple point is that those people receiving pensions, particularly those people living in mobile home parks, will be substantially ahead under the new taxation system. As the Prime Minister mentioned and perhaps I can demonstrate, if the Labor Party had been in government, those on a single age pension would be receiving $379 and under the coalition—because we have not only increased them, but also tied them—they are receiving $402. This clearly demonstrates that blue is coalition and red is the Labor Party. There is no substance whatsoever to the member for Grayndler's question. He should spend less time in scaremongering older Australians, because, under the total GST compensation package, they are ahead.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Once again, to help the minister, I seek leave to table the document which refers to clawback from his department.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. Is leave granted?Leave not granted. 2491914:48:0024919Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Minister, would you inform the House of the priorities outlined in the government white paper relating to naval expenditure? Are there other proposals that may affect this expenditure?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—He has almost got it right—just about there.24919Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—I thank the member for Kooyong for his question and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his interjection when he said, `Well, he keeps at it, and he's nearly right.'Opposition members—`Nearly there'!WI4Mr REITH—`Nearly there'? Well, `nearly there', `nearly right'. The fact of the matter is that the point I have been making to the House in the last week is that the Labor Party in one breath say that they support the defence white paper but they have an additional offering of two free submarines, which they are not prepared to disclose how they are going to pay for. I have brought with me today the defence white paper, Defence 2000—Our Future Defence Force. This is the best document for the defence of this country we have seen in decades in Australia. The member for Kooyong refers to naval expenditure and I refer all members to page 97 which spells out in detail the additional funding required to meet the objectives the government have set for additional naval expenditure and, obviously, naval equipment. In respect of the submarines, it is well known that we are spending more money on submarines to fix up the problems that we inherited from the previous government and, in particular, from the Leader of the Opposition when he was defence minister.It is about time that the Labor Party spelled out in some detail how they are going to pay for two additional submarines. The reason they have got to do that is that, unless they are prepared to tell us where the money is coming from, it is pretty obvious that what they intend to do is to shift the money around in the Defence portfolio—in other words, they will gut the white paper whilst at the same time having the gall to say to the Australian public that they support the document. The Leader of the Opposition has a bit of a record when it comes to financing and managing a project of this sort. In fact, back in 1986 the Financial Review reported:The Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, yesterday rejected recent claims that the cost of Australia's submarine project would exceed its $2.6 billion budget.In 1987, though, he did give us a glimpse of his real abilities as the defence minister. He said:The figures that will be presented to the Cabinet, the parameters of which I mentioned in the House yesterday, are a result of that process. It is not a process involving my sitting down and trying to work out the costs of a submarine.And then he said these immortal words:Quite clearly I am not capable or competent to do so.Amen to that, Mr Speaker. I could not think of anybody more incompetent or more incapable of spelling out the cost implications and the policy implications of Labor's two free submarines policy. Yet he is continuing to push the two free submarines. This is just one example of the narrowcasting that goes on when the microphones are turned off. In the Advertiser on 6 July last year the headline tells it all: `Beazley pledges a clean river and two new subs'. Furthermore—and he is convinced about it—`The case for building more was impeccable', to quote from the Adelaide Advertiser. Labor have a policy with a billion-dollar-plus hole in it. It is about time they exercised some responsibility and told us how they are going to pay for it; otherwise their claims about supporting what the government are doing are hollow. We think the defence white paper deserves support. It deserves substantial support—not the sort of playing at the edges we typically get from a lazy opposition who are not prepared to spell out their real policy position.2492014:53:0024920Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given your government's commitment to choice in the marketplace, including in areas like education, health and superannuation, why is there no similar provision for freedom of choice in relation to parliamentarians' superannuation? Would you seriously consider such a proposal to help bring the scheme into line with community expectations? 24920Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Without making any commitment on the run, yes, I will have a look at that.2492014:54:0024920Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Will the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House what action has been taken by the federal government in regard to the delivery of improved health services to those who live in rural, regional and remote Australia. Would the minister outline any alternative approaches that have been put forward in this area. 24920Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I will say a couple of things about some of the things that the Commonwealth government are doing in his electorate in a moment. Our record on rural and regional health, I think, speaks loudly and clearly for itself. We are determined to do everything that we can to ensure a reasonable quality of service delivery right across Australia in terms of health and health outcomes. One clear piece of evidence is the $562 million health package More Doctors, Better Services. It will get more doctors, more allied health professionals and more specialists into country areas. There is an extensive shortage in all three areas. There has been the extension of the full Medicare rebate to GP services provided by OMPs, other medical practitioners. There has been a significant contribution to the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine, ACRRM as it is known, to strengthen its role in supporting and training rural GPs. There has been a $117 million commitment for nine new rural clinical schools and two new university departments of health. At least 25 per cent of medical students will receive a minimum of half of their training in rural and remote areas. This will dramatically change the way in which medical education is delivered in this country. It will create a truly rurally focused national network of professional medical and health training. An example is the Whyalla Rural Clinical School, which I visited with the Minister for Health and Aged Care some 13 or 14 months ago. There was a real excitement in the air and a very positive attitude about what they are achieving. That will have a wide outreach into the Spencer Gulf region and the Eyre and the York peninsulas, including the centres of Whyalla, Port Augusta, Port Pirie, Coober Pedy, Port Lincoln and the surrounding district. We have established, too, the Rural Australia Medical Undergraduate Scholarship Scheme, an idea that came up, as the minister for health will recall, amongst other places, at Mudgee in my electorate. The scheme provides up to $10,000 for country students to study medicine. The research shows that young people from country areas are nine times more likely to practise in rural, regional or remote areas than are people from metropolitan areas. It is very interesting to note that in broad terms—I think the minister for health would confirm this—to get the supply of country doctors and specialists needed, the medical schools in the country need to be averaging around 25 per cent in their intake of country kids. Do honourable members know what it got down to under the ALP? We are addressing a massive policy failure—not just a lack of provision of resources but also a failure of planning—by the previous government. In some medical schools I understand it got down to two or three per cent. We are aiming to get it back up to 25 per cent with these sorts of approaches. The Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship Scheme will provide $20,000 to 100 medical students annually, conditional upon a commitment on their part to work in a rural area for six years. More recently I have strongly supported the request from the AMA and the Rural Doctors Association for a proper look at the issue of the impact of the Trade Practices Act on the recruitment and retention of doctors in rural areas. There is a continual expression of concern here. We need to get it sorted out. Through pressure from the minister for health, from me and from others, the New South Wales government is finally starting to look like it might do something about the spiralling cost of medical indemnity insurance. In the town of Mudgee in my electorate the cost of obstetrics has got so high that the local GPs are simply talking about not delivering babies locally—sending people 150 kilometres away just to have babies—when at every other time the expectations of these Australians, entirely reasonably, would have been to have had their babies in Mudgee. This reflects the Labor Party's lack of commitment to health in rural and regional areas. The Victorian government, back in the days when Mr Kennett was Premier, overcame the problem quite readily by classifying visiting medical officers as employees of hospitals, meaning that the insurance costs were covered by the Victorian government, not by individual doctors. But what did we get in New South Wales? As usual, we got a refusal to grapple with this very serious problem. Those Labor Party attitudes were reflected last night by the Leader of the Opposition when he announced the ALP's priorities for health. Lots of platitudes were delivered last night by the Leader of the Opposition but, in reality, compared to what we have delivered, no commitments at all. We have the runs on the board.The question has to be asked: where were the federal ALP when we announced in last year's budget the $562 million package More Doctors, Better Services? What was the response? Silence. They were alone in that silence. The package was welcomed by, amongst others, the National Rural Health Alliance, the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine, the rural doctors, the Australian Democrats, the ICPA, the NFF, the AMA, the Council of the Ageing, and rural people right across Australia. But where were the ALP? Silent. 2492215:00:0024922Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is also to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen weekend reports that, since the release of the Besley inquiry recommendations in October last year, which found that service levels in rural and regional Australia were not adequate, Telstra has dramatically cut investment in its network construction and maintenance, resulting in increased faults and further service inadequacies? Given that the Besley report specifically relied on Telstra maintaining its investment in its network, how is there a basis for pushing ahead for the full privatisation of Telstra, either before the next election or after?24922Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—These claims by the shadow minister have been investigated. We have seen these articles suggesting that Telstra has reduced its level of capital expenditure in the customer network, and they appear to be quite clearly wrong. Telstra has advised—Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—Whatever it takes, regardless of how you spin it or how you put it out. The one thing that ought to be clearly stated is that there is absolutely no interest whatsoever beyond political opportunism involved in the service outcomes to rural and regional Australians from those opposite. Telstra has advised that, at the beginning of its financial year, it forecast expenditure on the customer access network of $1.4 billion and has since advised that it is on target to meet that. There may be, I understand, some variations in how that is done year by year—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Variations!4K4Mr ANDERSON—That sometimes happens. Occasionally you do not actually meet your full target in the first year, for example, but that does not alter the fact that Telstra's advice is that it is on track with its three-year program. The Besley report referred to—just to get this right—an average $700 million per year spend over three years. Telstra remains committed to that spend. Furthermore, it has said that, while it is adjusting the amount of spending for individual contractors, it has not reduced the level of customer access network expenditure overall. We, on this side, have consistently talked of and reflected in our public statements our commitment to the concerns of rural and regional and remote consumers over Telstra and its telecommunications standards, and our track record clearly backs that up. Every time the opposition—regardless of who it is in the opposition—get up and ask questions like this, we will go on reminding them that we have a record of a strong and universal service obligation. Telstra's customer service guarantee—which they did not have at all; we put it in place—attracts substantial fines when Telstra does not meet its obligations under that service guarantee. We can also point to funding programs totalling now around a billion dollars, and such outcomes as the $150 million tender for remote area call zones, which I think really highlight a much better set of outcomes—particularly where we have been able to usefully leverage competition—than the ALP ever considered when they were in government. But the clincher, of course, in evidencing their lack of concern for rural and regional Australia, was always the blase way in which they committed the country to the closing down of the analog network.2492215:04:0024922Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister inform the House about measures being taken to continue to build up government schools? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies in this area, and what is his response to them?24922Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The government has put in place a range of policies to build up quality education in government schools, because we believe that every young Australian has the right to a quality education, whether they are in the government sector or in the private sector. A particularly heavy responsibility, of course, rests also on state governments, which provide some 88 per cent of the funding for government schools. The Commonwealth seeks to work in a positive partnership with state governments. Unfortunately, not all state governments carry out their responsibilities as they should, and no state government has reneged more on its responsibilities to government schools than the Carr government in New South Wales. By the single, most important performance indicator of success or failure—the willingness of parents to choose a government school for their child—the Carr Labor government in New South Wales is a crashing failure. Indeed, this was pointed out by the Daily Telegraph last Friday, 2 March when this comment was made: If school enrolment was a subject, Education Minister John Aquilina would fail his HSC.He would fail his HSC because the New South Wales Labor government is failing to face up to the essential issues that confront government schools. It is this government which has put in place literacy and numeracy programs and the vocational education in schools programs, which in fact are the most positive developments in government schools in New South Wales. If you have a look at the funding commitments for government schools in New South Wales, in the last budget the Carr government increased its funding by a paltry 1.9 per cent compared with a 4.4 per cent increase in Commonwealth funding for government schools in New South Wales. The Commonwealth has recently announced an additional $115 million for government schools in New South Wales through the enrolment benchmark adjustment to ensure that those schools are in a position to offer students high quality maths, science and technology courses. If there were the slightest real interest in public education on the part of the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party, they would be bringing pressure on the New South Wales government to lift its game and to restore its funding levels to government schools. But of course they do absolutely nothing. They have a pathetic policy of abolishing the EBA, a lazy policy of abolishing the EBA, which will simply funnel $115 million into the New South Wales Treasury, whereas our policy will ensure that the New South Wales government produces a plan to use that money in government schools. The lazy, serial non-performer on the other side of the table has absolutely no interest whatsoever in genuinely improving public education in this country, and there is a complete policy vacuum on that side of the House.2492315:08:0024923Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister avoided giving an answer on this matter to the question asked of him previously, will you promise that, were you re-elected, a Howard government will not fully privatise Telstra?24923Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thought that the Deputy Prime Minister gave a very good answer, as the Deputy Prime Minister always does. To borrow a phrase, our position on this is well known. The government have indicated that we will not proceed to the full privatisation of Telstra until we are satisfied that arrangements exist to deliver adequate services in particular to rural and regional Australia. We have always made it clear that our commitment in relation to Telstra is conditional on that. The government's immediate priority is to get more services into rural and regional areas. The Deputy Prime Minister has detailed those, and they have been made possible by the sensible use of the proceeds of the second tranche. Although the allegations made by the shadow minister have been emphatically denied by Telstra, as indicated by the Deputy Prime Minister, the government at present are not satisfied that arrangements are in place and believe that more work needs to be done, including in the context of the response to the Besley inquiry into the adequacy of service levels in rural and regional areas. Our position on this issue is very clear.2492415:10:0024924Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Would the minister inform the House of continuing attempts by trade unions to charge compulsory union levies to non-union members? What do these proposed charges mean for Australian workers and their families, and have there been any recent developments in this area?24924Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Pearce for her question, and I note that the Western Australian Labor government in her state is now trying to impose compulsory levies on students, let alone on workers. It is ACTU policy to force every non-unionist in this country to pay a $500 levy to the relevant trade union. If a company tried to charge people for services that they had not requested, it would be in breach of the trade practices legislation. Mr Speaker, if someone decided that your house needed a different coat of paint, proceeded to do the work without asking you and, when you came home, tried to charge you for it, that person would be guilty of a scam, pure and simple. They would be guilty of a scam.Last month, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission declined to remove a compulsory levy clause from a certified agreement even though it held that this was designed to coerce people to join the union. In effect, it held that these clauses were compulsory unionism by the back door and that they amounted to the creation of a Claytons closed shop. I can inform the House that the Employment Advocate has decided to appeal this decision after receiving further legal advice that these clauses contravene fundamental freedom of association principles. If the ACTU succeeds in this campaign, 5.7 million Australians who are not members of a trade union face a $500-a-year union tax. Where do members opposite stand? The opposition are fatally compromised on this matter, because in the last financial year Labor received $583,000 from the trade union at the heart of this dispute. No wonder they want a compulsory union levy: so they can recycle the money to the Labor Party. Unless the Leader of the Opposition repudiates this policy of the ACTU, unless the Leader of the Opposition says exactly where he stands, he will be guilty of having his hands deeply in the pockets of every Australian worker.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Miscellaneous2492415:13:0024924McMullan, Bob MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALPManager of Opposition Business00—At the request of the Leader of the House, I seek leave once again to table the documents which the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Lilley sought previously to table. I understand that the government have now changed their minds.Leave granted. Questions to the Speaker249242492415:14:0024924Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—On 6 December, questions 2221 and 2222, directed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care about a number of important health issues, appeared on the Notice Paper. The following day I listed questions 2229, 2252 and 2253 to the Minister for Health and Aged Care about some very important health issues. I would be grateful, under standing order 150, if you could write to the minister and ask him to give an answer to the questions. He is very slow in replying to the many questions I have asked him about a number of issues.24924SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10 —I will follow up as the standing orders provide.Personal Explanations2492415:15:0024924Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—On Thursday, 1 March 2001, the member for Moreton, in responding to my contribution to the MPI on telecommunications services, said, as recorded in Hansard: ... the member for Braddon ... condemned his own Labor state government's inaction in passing on money the Commonwealth had given to that Labor government in Tasmania for telecommunications infrastructure ... Nowhere in my speech, directly or indirectly—or at any other time—have I condemned the Tasmanian government, as irresponsibly alleged by the member for Moreton.Questions to the Speaker249252492515:16:0024925Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Mr Speaker, I refer to my question 1290 of 3 April 2000 to the Treasurer. Today marks the 336th day since that question was asked—and, incidentally, it is also the 18th anniversary of the election of the Hawke government. Would you be kind enough to write to the Treasurer for a fifth time?24925SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Rankin is drawing my attention to the provisions under standing order 150, I believe. I will follow the matter up.2492515:16:0024925SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The questions asked by the members for Lowe and Rankin prompt me now to make a statement to the House relative to a question asked of the Deputy Speaker last Thursday. The Deputy Speaker has drawn to my attention comments in the House last Thursday concerning the provision of information sought in a question on notice to people outside the House when the answer to the question has not been provided to the member. I understand that aspects of the operation of standing order 150 were also pursued.It has been the practice of the House that questions without notice which are substantially the same as questions already on the Notice Paper are not permissible. I understand that this is based on the principle that, as a matter of courtesy, a reply to a question should not be given openly to the House while one of its members who has placed a question on notice has not received a reply. There is one precedent to the contrary, where a member was permitted to ask a question without notice that was the same in substance as the question on the Notice Paper in his name. However, the Procedure Committee recommended continuation of past practice despite this precedent. Ministers are able to take whatever action they think fit with information sought by members in questions on notice.Concerning the operation of that part of standing order 150 which enables a member to request the Speaker to write to a minister who has not replied to a question within a designated time, the matter was raised with me, as indicated to the House on Thursday by the Manager of Opposition Business, on 7 and 8 February this year. I replied on both occasions that I would take further action as the standing orders provide. Standing order 120 provides that any response to a petition forwarded to a minister shall be reported to the House. However, the standing orders make no provision with respect to replies by ministers under standing order 150. A study of the history of that part of standing order 150 concerning following up unanswered questions reveals that the provision came into effect on 21 February 1994, following the About time report of the Procedure Committee of October 1993. The threshold time for unanswered questions then was 90 days. In June 1995, the Procedure Committee agreed to the report Time for review, concerning the procedural changes operating since February 1994. This report commented that statistical information on the operation of the standing order was inconclusive. However, the information it provided related to the receipt of an answer to the question, which is, I believe, the main intention of the provision, not a minister's reply to the Speaker's letter. The 1995 report suggested two significant alterations to the standing order. One was to reduce the threshold time from 90 to 60 days; the second was to recommend the addition of the following paragraph:At the conclusion of question period on each sitting Thursday, the Speaker shall report to the House listing those ministers to whom he or she has written pursuant to this standing order, any responses received and those ministers who were reported in a previous report as having been written to and who have not responded, giving the date of the original letter. The report shall be recorded in Hansard. No action had been taken on this recommendation when the House was dissolved prior to the general election in 1996. In the next parliament, the standing order was amended so as to reduce the threshold to 60 days only. Given that the House has not determined its position on this matter, I am not able to provide it with any further information. It is, of course, open to any member to propose an amendment to the standing orders along the lines of the 1995 Procedure Committee proposal. I have not specifically replied to the requests made of me by the Manager of Opposition Business as I indicated in February that further action would be in accordance with the provisions of the standing orders. Since all the provisions of the standing orders had been met, I had considered the matter closed.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I would like to consider that report and speak to you subsequently, but could I ask you one question about it at the moment. Are you saying in that statement that you do not have the discretion available to you to table those letters if you choose? I realise the standing orders do not require you to, but does that statement imply that you say you do not have the discretion so to do if you choose? 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I believe the Manager of Opposition Business is right. I would also, however, indicate to the Manager of Opposition Business that it has not been the practice of ministers to respond to my letters, and I gather from my discussions with those who occupy my office that that has been the standard practice through a succession of Speakers.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, I have a further question on this report. You said that the minister can answer a question as he thinks fit. Does that include the possibility that a minister can refuse to give information which he has in an answer to a question on notice when he or she is directly asked to do so?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Weren't you here when Paul Keating was here?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House! I would indicate to the member for Calwell that the way in which a minister chooses to answer a question on notice is entirely the business of the minister.2492615:22:0024926Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to today's Notice Paper, specifically private members business notice No. 17. I am sure you are aware of the notice, but I am just wondering whether you might have a look at it and give some consideration to adopting a trial period for that which is called for in that notice over the sitting period of the end of March to the beginning of April. The motion, which is to be seconded by the member for Braddon but which may not get up, calls for a look at dress standards. It may be beneficial for this House to have a two-week trial period to give members on both sides and perhaps you a better idea as to how it may work and how it may benefit workers and others who attend the gallery as they go about their day-to-day business in this House. I would be most appreciative of your consideration.24926SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will consider the matter raised by the member for Cowan, but I would point out to him, as he and all members would be aware, that the opportunity for this motion to be considered in the House is in the hands of the Selection Committee.2492615:23:0024926Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Mr Speaker, in relation to the first matter that you raised a moment ago about questions followed up under standing order 150, it was I who raised the issue of a question that was outstanding. I did so last Thursday in your absence, when the Acting Speaker was in the chair, and I sought leave to table the letter from the Alzheimer's Association, which effectively verballed the Minister for Health and Aged Care. That was the purpose for which I raised it, because the question had been on the Notice Paper for some four months and I had not received an answer. So, in view of what you have said this afternoon about that particular matter, I am just wondering how long we could expect it to be before the House will get a formal response to this which would be printed in Hansard, because it concerns a lot of members in this House on both sides of the chamber. 24927SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Lowe would be aware that the statement that I have just made will, of course, be printed in Hansard. Any further action is in the hands of the Procedure Committee, not in the hands of the chair.249271The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:24927139LS483NFI4UK684HMr Martin Ferguson;Ms Hall;Mr Allan Morris;Mr Kelvin Thomson;Mr ZahraTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to:(1) our strong support for our independent national public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation;(2) the sustained political and financial pressures that the Howard Government has placed on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), including:(a) the 1996 and 1997 Budget cuts which reduced funding to the ABC by $66 million per year; and(b) its failure to fund the ABC's transition to digital broadcasting;(3) our concern about recent decisions made by the ABC Board and senior management, including the Managing Director Jonathan Shier, which we believe may undermine the independence and high standards of the ABC including:(a) the cut to funding for News and Current Affairs;(b) the reduction of the ABC's in-house production capacity;(c) the closure of the ABC TV Science Unit;(d) the circumstances in which the decision was made not to renew the contract of Media Watch presenter Mr Paul Barry; and(e) consideration of the Bales Report, which recommended the extension of the ABC's commercial activities in ways that may be inconsistent with the ABC Act and the Charter;Your petitioners ask the House to:(1) protect the independence of the ABC;(2) ensure that the ABC receives adequate funding;(3) call upon the Government to rule out its support for the privatisation of any part of the ABC, particularly JJJ, ABC On-line and the ABC Shops; and(4) call upon the ABC Board and senior management to:(a) fully consult with the people of Australia about the future of our ABC;(b) address the crisis in confidence felt by both staff and the general community; and(c) not approve any commercial activities inconsistent with the ABC Act and Charter.10Mr Martin FergusonLS4Mr Martin Ferguson (from 10 citizens),78Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 78 citizens),24Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris (from 24 citizens),15Mr Kelvin ThomsonUK6Mr Kelvin Thomson (from 15 citizens) and12Mr Zahra84HMr Zahra (from 12 citizens).24927669KL6Mr AndrenTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of the undersigned Lithgow community draws to the attention of the House its concern over the long-term decline in funding of the ABC and asks the House to call upon the Federal Government to support:(i) the independence of the ABC Board; (ii) the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee to oversee ABC Board appointments so that it is constructed as a multi-partisan Board, independent of the government of the day;(iii) an immediate increase in funding allowing the ABC to operate independently of commercial pressures including advertising and sponsorship; and(iv) the maintenance of its role as an independent regional broadcaster.669Mr AndrenKL6Mr Andren (from 669 citizens).249281883YMs HoareTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to:(1) our strong support for our independent national public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC);(2) the sustained political and financial pressure the Howard Government has placed on the ABC; and(3) our concern about recent decisions made by the ABC Board and senior management, which we believe may undermine the independence and high standards of the ABC.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to:(1) protect the independence of the ABC;(2) ensure that the ABC receives adequate funding;(3) call upon the Government to rule out its support for the privatisation of any part of the ABC; and(4) call upon the ABC Board and senior management to:(a) fully consult with the people of Australia about the future of our ABC;(b) address the crisis in confidence felt by both staff and the general community; and(c) not approve any commercial activities inconsistent with the ABC Act and Charter.18Ms Hoare83YMs Hoare (from 18 citizens).249282915WF683DMr Danby;Mr MurphyTo the Honourable the Speaker and 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; 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 petrol;· Consider the best way to return the fuel tax windfall to Australian motorists.2860Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby (from 2,860 citizens) and55Mr Murphy83DMr Murphy (from 55 citizens).2492821007T4Mrs CrosioTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House community concern about the conditions in hostels and nursing homes for the aged.We know from our contacts with old people, friends and acquaintances, how unsatisfactory the situation is in many of the homes. Old people who are sick or not strong enough to look after themselves need a great deal of care from those who are specially trained to give it. They are often in homes because their relatives have not the strength and skill to manage, untrained casual staff cannot be expected to manage. We are aware that many nursing homes do not have sufficient trained staff to cope with the needs of patients.We call upon the Government to enforce regulations and to provide proper avenues for family members to raise legitimate complaints for impartial investigation. It is simply not good enough to be informed `if you are not satisfied take your relative to another nursing home.' Your petitioners therefore request the House to take note of our concerns and ensure the current system will protect the rights of nursing home residents.2100Mrs Crosio7T4Mrs Crosio (from 2,100 citizens).2492969883NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that the government reopen Belmont Medicare Office as there is no Medicare office between Charlestown and Lake Haven and there has been a drastic decline in the numbers of general practitioners bulkbilling.The closure of Belmont Medicare Office has caused great hardship to many local residents particularly the elderly and those with young children.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives do everything in their power to ensure that Belmont Medicare Office is reopened as a matter of urgency.698Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 698 citizens).24929225083NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that the Government take action to preserve bulkbilling and to strengthen the Medicare system.The cessation of bulkbilling by many general practitioners as a direct result of government policy has caused great hardship to many local residents on low incomes particularly the elderly and those with young children.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives introduce legislation to ensure that bulkbilling is preserved and that our Medicare system is strengthened.2250Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 2,250 citizens).249294683NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:We the undersigned request that John Simpson Kirkpatrick, of Simpson and donkey fame, be awarded the Victoria Cross of Australia.Under the Imperial Award system, the award of the Victoria Cross was denied to Simpson as the result of some confusion in the original application. In 1915 John Monash (later General) recommended Simpson for the VC. In 1967 Lieutenant Casey who also witnessed Simpson's work (later Governor General, Lord Casey) together with Prime Minister Holt and the Chief of the General Staff, Major General Brand (also a witness) recommended him for the VC. This was also denied. The British Government claimed that a dangerous precedent would be set. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives do everything in their power to honour the integrity and wishes of these fine Australians and overturn the original decision not to award the VC to Simpson. Simpson is a symbol of the self-sacrifice, mateship and all those values that Anzacs now stand for and Australians treasure. By honouring him, we honour them all.46Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 46 citizens).2492911773IK6Mr LloydTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:The continuing traffic congestion, extensive delays and accidents which occur regularly on the F3 Freeway, particularly between the Hawkesbury River and the Gosford interchange, resulting in excessive transport costs, loss of productivity and driver frustration.Your petitioners therefore request the House to demand both the Commonwealth and NSW State Government take immediate action to widen the F3 Freeway.11773Mr LloydIK6Mr Lloyd (from 11,773 citizens).2492982FI4Mr Allan MorrisTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of citizens of the Hunter region in NSW draws to the attention of the House, the short-sighted decision of the new Manager of the ABC, Mr Jonathan Shier in his decision to cut the Quantum program and the Independent Science Unit from the ABC.Quantum has long played a vital role in bringing science into the living room of ordinary Australians. Quantum is the only program of its kind to be broadcast in Australia. In doing so, Quantum has not only `demystified' science but engendered widespread public interest in an area that is vital to the ongoing growth and development of our nation. In the light of the desperate need to attract more students to science and increase investment into this field, the decision to cut both Quantum and the Independent Science Unit is contrary to the national interest. Our petitioners therefore request the House to instruct Mr Jonathan Shier to retain The Independent Science Unit and to retain Quantum in upcoming ABC programming.82Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris (from 82 citizens).249301683DMr MurphyTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:We, the residents of Inner Western Sydney, draw the attention of the House to the broken promise of the Prime Minister to all people aged over 60, that they would receive a $1,000 bonus as compensation for the GST.We ask the House to protect pensioners from the negative results of the GST. Further, we ask the House to ensure that the Government keep its promises and that the $1,000 be given to all those aged over 60.16Mr Murphy83DMr Murphy (from 16 citizens).24930246UK6Mr Kelvin ThomsonTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives and Parliament assembled:The petition of residents of the State of Victoria draws attention to the House concerns over the proposal to abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal.This proposed legislation will disadvantage many workers and their families and is legislation solely designed to protect and look after the employer.Your petitioners therefore request that the powers of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as enshrined in the Safety Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 1988 be preserved and that the proposed changes to this Act be rejected.246Mr Kelvin ThomsonUK6Mr Kelvin Thomson (from 246 citizens).249301992HV5Mr WakelinTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The petition of certain residents of the state of South Australia brings to the attention of the House deep concerns at the suggestion that the boys Jon Venables and Robert Thompson who murdered the little Bolger child, may be transported to Australia.Your petitioners therefore:Pray that the House, present our objections to the acceptance of these boys into our country, and not allow this to happen. 1992Mr WakelinHV5Mr Wakelin (from 1,992 citizens).Petitions received.Miscellaneous2493010000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I advise the House that I have fixed Monday, 5 March 2001, at 4.30 p.m. or such later time as the Deputy Speaker takes the Main Committee chair, as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Miscellaneous24930Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2000-2001Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2000-2001Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2000-2001Bills24930R123524930Bill presented by Mrs Crosio.15:28:0024930Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I rise to introduce my private member's bill, the Employee Protection (Employee Entitlements Guarantee) Bill 2001, a bill which I have introduced into this parliament in various amended forms each year for the past four years. Each time I have introduced this bill, to my disappointment and to the detriment of thousands of Australian workers, it has been ignored and been allowed to lapse by this government. However, every year that this government chooses to ignore and not legislate this bill, thousands of Australian workers are being robbed of their legally accrued entitlements. This bill will secure the full payment of employee entitlements such as unpaid wages, annual leave, long service leave and redundancy pay in the case of corporate insolvency. Corporate insolvency and the loss of workers' entitlements have received significant media attention over the last few years. However, it has been an issue which I have raised in this parliament time and time again since I first raised it in 1996 after an electronics firm in my electorate went belly up and its workers lost not only their jobs but also all their entitlements, which totalled millions of dollars. Back then there was not a lot of interest in this issue from the government, but it is funny how things have changed over the last few years. Recently a great deal of public concern was generated over the payment of the entitlements of employees of mines such as the Oakdale colliery, the Woodlawn mine and the Cobar copper and zinc mine. In these cases the employees of the mines were faced with the situation of losing all or most of their entitlements due to the company becoming insolvent. More recently, closures in the textiles industry refocused national attention on the issue, particularly National Textiles, a firm in the Hunter Valley, New South Wales, which went belly up owing its employees a reported $3.5 million in entitlements. While these closures were occurring in the workplace, this bill, if it had been legislated and become law, would have secured 100 per cent of these workers' entitlements. The workers would have been paid out in full had this bill been legislated.All the government had to do was to adopt this bill but, year after year, they have refused. In 1998, they said they had legal advice that this bill was not workable, and it was obvious that they were plainly uninterested in the issue. I reintroduced the bill in 1999. The government said the bill was not viable, because it did not even cover redundancies and was too much of a burden for small business owners. So, in 2000, I amended the bill to include redundancies and to exempt small businesses. Again, the government ignored the bill. They ignored this bill even after I said to them that this bill could be amended or changed and that the government could even take the credit for the bill, as long as the end result would be that Australian workers would have 100 per cent of their entitlements secured. It is now obvious for all to see that, if this is going to happen in Australia, it will take the election of a Beazley Labor government to do it.Here, I introduce the bill for the fourth time and hopefully this time the federal government will have the decency to work with this bill and come up with some viable plan to secure 100 per cent of workers' entitlements. I will not rest, whether I am in opposition or in government, until Australian workers have 100 per cent of their entitlements secured. Despite all of the commotion and attention this issue of employee entitlements has received over the years, thousands of Australian workers are still being forced out of work, with many losing all or most of their accrued entitlements.Last year, after four successive years of the Labor opposition proposing employee entitlements schemes, the government's hand was forced to create the employee entitlements safety net scheme. It did so only after the entire nation's attention was focused around the National Textiles factory in the Hunter Valley where 342 employees were left without a job and were owed more than $3.5 million in entitlements.Members of parliament will recall the workers at National Textiles losing their jobs and going for some time without any compensation. Of course, the workers at National Textiles are the only workers in Australia that this government decided it would endeavour to look after. They are the only workers in Australia who got their full entitlements. The main factor which prompted this government to act on workers' entitlements in the National Textiles case, I believe, was the fact that the Chairman of National Textiles was the Prime Minister's brother. They are the only workers in this country that this government has gone out of its way to do anything for, and I find that absolutely outrageous! Over the years, this government has sat back with its arms folded and watched 160 workers at the Woodlawn copper and zinc mine lose their jobs and almost $6 million in entitlements; 270 workers at the Cobar mine lose their entitlements and have to fight tooth and nail to get only a shadow of it back; 250 meatworkers at Grafton lose around $3 million in entitlements; and 150 nurses from Yeppoon, near Rockhampton, lose $1.4 million. The government saw the debacles at the Oakdale colliery—and only through a certain industry fund structure were they able to get some of their entitlements back—Braybrook textiles and many other places across the country. The list goes on. Each case reminds us of those workers and their families who, through no fault of their own, were dudded out of their right to access their legally accrued entitlements. Every time one of these cases came up, the government said, `Oh, dear, we're going to do something about it and we're going to get an entitlement scheme up and running' In the meantime, the Labor opposition has introduced two separate bills in the parliament—this one and one from my colleague the member for Brisbane. Both have been introduced in this parliament several times. Altogether this government has squandered seven opportunities to protect workers' entitlements—three from the member for Brisbane and now four with this bill. The fact that it took a family member of the Prime Minister to become embroiled in a corporate insolvency for this government to act on this issue is clearly not good enough.I quote from the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business himself: Australia's workers should no longer be left high and dry when businesses collapse.It is time that we had a complete entitlements scheme which guarantees payment of 100 per cent of workers' entitlements in the case of insolvency. But what does the new minister for workplace relations say to those workers who have built up thousands of dollars in entitlements? He was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald on 23 January 2001 as saying:What we expect people to do is to take their holidays as they fall due and not delay too long in terms of taking any long service leave that's owing to them.In other words, the minister is saying that workers should cash out their entitlements—take holidays or cash out their annual leave and all their entitlements—because this government cannot secure them. The minister is saying that this government will never act to guarantee the payment of legally accrued entitlements, so you might as well get them cashed out as they accrue—that is, if you can.This is essentially an admission from the minister that what we have been saying all along is correct: the current government's employee entitlements safety net scheme does not go far enough. The safety net protects employees' entitlements only to a maximum of 29 weeks pay, capped at $20,000 per claim. The scheme is only 50 per cent funded by the federal government and relies on the states to make up the other 50 per cent of the payments.What happens if employees have accrued up to $60,000 or even $70,000 over their 20 or 30 years of hard work and then one day they turn up to work to learn that their boss has gone under and that the money that they should be getting will be used to pay his creditors? I ask government members whether they themselves would be satisfied with a payout of $20,000 dollars or less if they had worked for most of their lives and had been entitled to something like $50, 000 or more.The Labor opposition has come up with many viable, feasible and affordable alternatives to the current employee entitlements safety net scheme. However, characteristically, because someone else thought of it first, this government still refuses to act to protect Australian employees' entitlements. This bill proposes that, through the establishment of a scheme similar to the way in which superannuation funds are operated, 100 per cent of all employee entitlements would be locked away and would be able to be accessed by employees in the case of insolvency. The problem of insolvency and employee entitlements is becoming an Australia-wide problem. However, one of the main problems with lost entitlements is the keeping and recording of the statistics on employee entitlements and corporate insolvency. The Melbourne Age on 4 September 1999 reported that it was difficult to calculate the extent of damage caused by the problem of employer insolvency and lost employee entitlements in Australia. The Age also stated:It is hard to quantify the problem accurately, neither the Australian Bureau of Statistics nor the Australian Securities and Investment Commission monitor Employee Entitlements squandered through companies that go belly up, but estimates suggest that it could be as high as $181 million a year.The ACTU, in its submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Securities in 1998, calculated that at least 7,000 businesses fail each year and they estimate that at least half of these cause their employees to go without their legally accrued entitlements. The ACTU further estimated that annual losses in employee entitlements in Australia total close to $140 million per year. While the Howard government's Employee Entitlements Support Scheme is a start in the right direction to solving the problem, a viable solution to the Australia-wide problem of loss of entitlements is yet to be found. This government's employee entitlements safety net scheme is just like trying to cover a king size bed with a very small handkerchief.Recent figures which have been released by the government show the inadequacy of the current employee entitlements scheme. These figures show that, in the first 12 months of the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme, only $3.1 million has been paid through the scheme, despite there being $55 million allocated for the scheme in the 2000-01 budget. The government's figures show that 1,650 employees of 104 insolvent companies had been paid a total of $3.1 million in the 12 months to 31 December 2000. The figures also show that 127 claims from employees regarding 42 businesses had been refused because they had not met the criteria. The current scheme simply does not cover the extent of the problem in Australia—even on the government's own estimates, the scheme falls short. The government contracted a leading insurance broker to estimate the average level of lost entitlements each year. The insurance firm reported that the figure is expected to be around $110 million per annum, affecting up to 19,000 employees, each owed an average of $5,700. This is much bigger than the measly $3.1 million that was paid out to only 1,650 employees through the EESS in the first 12 months to 31 December 2000.This government must act to provide the payment of full entitlements of employees, that is, 100 per cent of entitlements in the case of insolvency—not just at the capped figure of $20,000, and not just 50 per cent funded by the federal government and 50 per cent funded by the states. Employee entitlements should not be a liability of the Australian taxpayer. They should be secured and guaranteed so that the costs to businesses are kept at a minimum and the cost to the taxpayers is kept at a minimum. The excuses this government has given for not considering this bill or any other bill which aims to secure 100 per cent entitlements are not adequate. Last time I introduced this bill, there was a lot of talk about a bipartisan approach to this issue and I am bitterly disappointed that this government has allowed the wheels to fall off the bipartisan train.The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business recently issued a statement of rebuttal against the alternatives to the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme, where he lists all his reasons why the government cannot legislate to protect 100 per cent of employee entitlements. One reason the minister claims this cannot be done is that no other country in the world secures 100 per cent of employee entitlements or has an employee entitlements scheme similar to the one I am proposing. I say to the minister and to his government benches: where would this country and, indeed, the developed world be if every time someone came up with a policy which was a `world first' it was not legislated because no other country had done it before? Who is going to begin? It is time for Australia to take a leading role on the issue of employee entitlements. If the ABS or the Australian Securities Commission do not collect figures on the amount of employee entitlements squandered by bosses in cases of insolvency, then let us commission them to do so. This would be the first step towards accurately calculating the extent of the problem in Australia. We must do whatever it takes in research or in policy experimentation to find an alternative which secures 100 per cent of legally accrued entitlements to all employees at the lowest possible cost to business and to the taxpayer. I am not saying that this bill is the be-all and end-all on this issue—I never have—but I am saying that this bill is a damn sight better than this government's half-cocked Employee Entitlements Support Scheme because this bill, at least, guarantees 100 per cent of workers' entitlements.The protection of employees' entitlements is more important and more complex and deserves closer consideration than the superficial approach that the government has made to it. Australian employees, in an era of widespread concern over the security of their jobs, their incomes and their families, deserve nothing less than to have 100 per cent of the entitlements for which they have worked protected under law. I introduce this bill again and I will keep reintroducing this bill each year until we have 100 per cent entitlements guaranteed in this country. I commend the bill to the House, and ask the government to act.Bill read a first time.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with sessional order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills24934R123424934Bill presented by Mr Andren.15:43:0024934Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I present the Parliamentary (Choice of Superannuation) Bill 2001 and the explanatory memorandum to this bill. If there is one issue that emphasises the divide between parliamentarians and those they represent, it is the difference in standards applied to superannuation entitlements for the general community and those standards applying to MPs.These double standards are a constant theme in discussions with people in my electorate, especially those trying without success to access part of their superannuation for pressing financial commitments prior to their preservation age. Such double standards are indefensible, and are doing more than any other single issue, I believe, to disconnect parliament and the people. Ideally, the existing unfunded super scheme for MPs should be abandoned, with members treated just like employees in the real world. I am not confident there is any will for such action from government or opposition, especially given the response in this place to my questions to the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance and Administration in recent years. The Prime Minister in fact told the House, `You will never really solve the problem.' This bill is a necessary start to solving that problem and restoring faith in our political process.The bill amends the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 to give senators and members of the House of Representatives the freedom to opt out of the compulsory parliamentary superannuation scheme. This bill removes the compulsion for new members to belong to the parliamentary scheme and allows existing members to have any accrued superannuation benefit rolled over into a complying fund or RSA of their choice. Such members opting out will have Commonwealth contributions paid to their complying fund or RSA in line with requirements of the Superannuation Guarantee Administration Act 1992. Under that legislation, the majority of Australian workers currently have contributions made on their behalf by their employers. The government's choice of superannuation legislation currently before the Senate specifically exempts members and senators. Despite a Senate inquiry in 1997 which concluded the current parliamentary scheme lacks transparency, is out of step with the wider community and is in some cases excessively generous, there is no will to make the necessary changes—not that I have detected. The parliamentary scheme was born in an era when MPs were considered more likely to face job insecurity that the rest of the work force. In 2001, there is no such thing as job security or a job for life for the vast number of employees. By giving members and senators the freedom to opt out of the parliamentary scheme, this bill implements one of the key conclusions reached by the government members of the Senate select committee. Freedom of choice is basic to this government's policies in fields such as health, education and, indeed, in superannuation. Such standards should also apply to members of parliament who should not be forced to belong to a super scheme which they consider fails the test of equity, fairness, transparency and compatibility with community standards. Let me quote some of the recent comments from government members on the issue of choice. In his contribution to the choice of super legislation in this House in February 2000, the member for Parramatta proudly quotes Ken Lockery, a consulting actuary:...employee choice of superannuation fund is the sort of individual freedom of choice that one can readily associate with a democratic society.Again, the member for Parramatta:Choice is critical to individuals' taking ownership of their own future...But it seems that choice should not extend to the legislators' own superannuation entitlements. Again, the honourable member for Parramatta says, of the choice of super bill:This bill is powerfully and practically presenting employees with the motive to take control of their own financial future.The member's sentiments were anticipated by the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation when, in introducing the bill, he said:The choice of fund arrangements are about giving employees greater choice and control over their superannuation savings...I hope the minister and those other members who so strongly support the freedom of super choice for the wider community will now view this private member's bill in exactly the same light and use their undoubted influence in the party room to urge a full second reading debate on this bill. Indeed, I would suggest that the member for Parramatta could rebadge his earlier speech to support my bill. Elsewhere in recent months we have heard much about choice, and not only in the area of superannuation. The member for Groom, now Minister for Small Business, spoke in the education debate of the government's `commitment to give parents choice'. The Prime Minister in August last year, on the same topic, `We stand arguably for freedom of choice.' The former Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business on the issue of secret union ballots in June last year said:The extension of the existing scheme for secret ballots would enhance freedom of choice.He was backed up by the member for Dawson who said, `It is a simple matter of freedom of choice.' The member for Herbert, speaking on the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 in June last year said:In contrast with the opposition, the coalition remains committed to a high quality health care system... with the freedom of choice provided by a strong private sector...In a similar vein, the member for Sturt:...yet Labor does not believe in helping low income Australians who want the freedom of choice and security that private health insurance offers.Let me tell you, I have plenty of people on low incomes coming to my office wanting to access part of their super but are barred from doing so. The member for Moreton was no less passionate in support of choice in his contribution to the gap cover schemes legislation in March of last year when he said: It is always a low-water mark in debate when you hear the absolute hatred of freedom of choice of those opposite. It is a dreadful development in this debate to suggest that Australians should conform to one all-encompassing socialistic medical scheme in the form of Medicare without having the opportunity to take up the cudgels of self support.Hear, hear! I now look forward to this bill proceeding rapidly through both houses of parliament, carried by the voices. We now have the sanctity of choice embedded in every policy area except that which impacts directly on parliamentarians themselves. It applies to unions, to health care, to choice of school, indeed, to public servants, but it will not apply to MPs' super. The opposition did little to reform the fundamental inequities of the scheme during their time in government, apart from in 1983 when it reduced the outrageous 100 per cent computation to 50 per cent and reintroduced the provision to reduce a pension when a former parliamentarian was receiving remuneration from an office of profit under the Crown—not stop such a pension, reduce it.The excessive generosity of this scheme remains intact to this day. I believe there are many members of parliament who think the current super scheme for parliamentarians is not only seriously out of kilter with community standards but it is excessively generous. Apart from anything else, it rewards mediocrity rather than success. It rewards short-termism. A member losing preselection after eight years becomes a recipient of its benefits. One party member told me it enables the system to get rid of dead wood.Following the 1998 federal election it was revealed that 33-year-old Queensland Senator Bill O'Chee—who I certainly would not categorise as dead wood—lost his seat after nine years and would be entitled to an indexed pension commencing at approximately $45,000 per year. While private funds and their members' savings are subject to the vagaries of the market, the MPs' scheme cushions members from such shocks. It also accelerates indexed increases through the linking of parliamentary salaries to average weekly ordinary time earnings rather than the lesser MATWE—that is, male average total weekly earnings—to which mere pensions are linked, including age pensions. Senator O'Chee is estimated by Business Review Weekly to have contributed about $107,000 towards his super, with the taxpayer funding at least $1.28 million over the expected course of his life. In other words, the taxpayer has contributed more than $127,000 a year to Senator O'Chee's super, and I believe these are modest figures. Meantime, former long serving member, minister and Speaker Ian Sinclair is estimated to have contributed over 35 years up to $1.21 million of an estimated $1.69 million payout, with the taxpayer funding about $480,000. Mr Sinclair's entitlement is much more in line with private enterprise and reflects the fact that long serving members' contributions and the Commonwealth top-up result in a more acceptable outcome as the length of service increases, but it is still unacceptably generous.One of those publicly seeking changes to the parliamentary scheme is the member for Werriwa, who in a speech in the Main Committee on 2 November last said:Parliamentary superannuation as a generous entitlement made sense when we alone in the community faced job insecurity. But now, in the new economy, job insecurity is all over the place. There is hardly an Australian who feels secure in their workplace. For that reason, why should parliamentarians have a different set of superannuation rules from the general community?Why indeed. The honourable member for Werriwa went on to say that reform of the scheme would help rebuild trust in our democratic system. He said democracy is not working and that all parliamentarians should join in a healthy debate about how we can fix the system. I humbly suggest that this private member's bill is the place to start, by offering members a choice of their own superannuation scheme. I urge members to read the detailed explanatory memorandum that accompanies the bill. It sets out the purpose of the scheme when established by then Prime Minister and Treasurer Ben Chifley in 1948 and details its history since. Members and senators who opt out of the parliamentary scheme would under this bill reduce the Commonwealth's liability from an unfunded commitment to be paid out of consolidated revenue to just that amount required under the Superannuation Guarantee Scheme, which is currently 8 per cent of salary. Every three years the Australian Government Actuary provides the Department of Finance and Administration with details of the long-term cost to the Commonwealth of funding parliamentarians' superannuation. Incidentally, the 1999 review is yet to be made public. Despite my best endeavours, I am told that it is confidential; for what reason I am not quite sure, seeing it was published in 1996. At each review the notional contribution rate is reported. This rate illustrates the effective cost of parliamentary superannuation benefits as a percentage of the total salaries of scheme members. As at 30 June 1996, the rate was 69.1 per cent. Therein lies the 61 per cent credibility gap in the parliamentary superannuation scheme. That is the gap between the eight per cent super guarantee required of normal employers for normal employees and the 69 per cent contribution from the Commonwealth to its MP employees under a scheme devised and overseen by the parliamentarians themselves.Preserved superannuation benefits can only be accessed by the wider public on limited compassionate and severe financial hardship grounds. Under new preservation rules, a person can have early access to preserved benefits only if they are taken in the form of a non-commutable lifetime pension or annuity on the termination of gainful employment. It is this feature which enables—indeed, encourages—retiring parliamentarians to gain early access to their superannuation entitlements. By way of example, John Citizen works at Devro pet food factory in Bathurst and accumulates what super he can afford by way of his own contribution and the super guarantee contribution of his employer. If he wanted to retire from gainful employment early, at, say, 45, the annuity or lifetime pension available from his fund would be lucky to cover his mortgage. However, the generosity of the parliamentary scheme enables a member, at the same age as John Citizen, to lose preselection or an election after eight years, or indeed voluntarily retire after 12 years, and the funds available, thanks to the Commonwealth contribution, are so large as to make an annuity or lifetime pension not just attractive but able to support him or her without the need for other income for the rest of his or her life. On top of that, although the rest of the community is not allowed to commute their super to lump sums prior to preservation age, the parliamentary scheme continues to allow parliamentarians to take up to 50 per cent of their pension entitlement in a lump sum prior to reaching preservation age. It is certainly enough to pay the mortgage out, take an overseas trip or two, replace the car, maybe buy a rental property to negative gear and have an indexed lifetime pension to boot. Not only do eligible retiring or discarded members or senators reap that reward, there are opportunities galore for retired younger MPs to move into business and secure very high incomes. My predecessor in Calare is a former minister, and he has been chief executive of both Hunter Tourism and Newcastle Chamber of Commerce. I have great respect for the former member. He, like hundreds before him, has quite properly accessed the scheme and enjoyed its benefits. But the scheme itself is rotten, and no-one in this place should feel comfortable with it if they truly respect the reasons for the public hostility and dismay it provokes. Let us have a proper review of the worth of politicians and their salaries, but we must not distort the process by continuing this super scheme. In the interim, the bill enables those who do not believe in the scheme to opt out. (Time expired)Bill read a first time.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with sessional order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Private Members' Business249382493815:58:0024938Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I move:That this House:(1) records its dismay and sorrow at the horrific Christmas/New Year death toll on our nation's roads, particularly in New South Wales and records its sympathy to the family and friends of those people who have died or been seriously injured;(2) recognises the importance of maintaining an efficient and safe road transport network in both city and rural areas, as a vital component of lowering the road toll;(3) calls on all State and Territory governments to match the Commonwealth's significant increase in road funding;(4) acknowledges the Federal Government's increasing commitment to the national road network via its $1.2 billion Roads to Recovery funding package; and(5) recognises the importance of on-going funding commitments to further improve the national highway system.I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to put forward this private member's motion. The first item of that motion expresses my concern and my condolences, and I am sure those of every member of parliament, to the many victims of the road toll over the holiday period at Christmas and new year. I am sure all members were horrified by the horrific road toll that occurred during that holiday period. Australia wide, some 78 people lost their lives on roads throughout Australia. I think more significantly, the number in New South Wales was quite horrific in comparison to the other states, with 38 people dying over the Christmas-New Year holiday period. It was interesting that, whilst there has not been a full investigation into those deaths, there was a whole range of issues that it would appear caused the deaths of those people. Nineteen of the 38 died in accidents where speed was a factor, 10 were not wearing seat belts, 11 died when drivers were affected by fatigue and six deaths involved drivers affected by alcohol. So you can see that there is a whole range of causes for those deaths. I certainly want to record my concerns and my condolences to the relatives and friends of those people who lost their lives, and to the people who were badly injured over that Christmas holiday period. People who are seriously injured in accidents obviously suffer for a long time, as do their friends and relatives. It is a great tragedy and a great loss to all of us in Australia.Better roads are a way of reducing deaths and injuries on our roads. I want to commend the federal government on its Roads to Recovery package, the $1.6 billion which is being pumped into the roads system in Australia in an effort to reduce the road toll and to create better roads for all Australians. The federal government has provided that $1.6 billion to local governments and this money will be injected directly into councils. In my area, both Gosford and Wyong councils will receive an additional $7,359,000 over the next four years which has to be spent specifically on local roads. The Labor opposition are trying to make some political mileage out of such packages, but I have not noticed any of the Labor opposition or any Labor run councils offering to give the money back. This is a 75 per cent increase over the current 2000-01 financial assistance grants and will be in addition to the money already given by the federal government. I call on state governments to match the federal government's commitment to roads. I have not seen the New South Wales government rushing forward to inject more money into local roads, to improve them and make them safer. It is important that, as we said in question time, state governments put their money where their mouths are.Also, there is an issue locally which affects not just my electorate but all of New South Wales and Australia, that is, the road transport from Sydney, heading north through New South Wales into Queensland—the F3 freeway. There has been a long history of wanting a better road along that highway, right back to 1960. The first section of the F3 was opened on 15 December 1965, from the Hawkesbury River to Mount White and carrying on to Calga in 1966. That section of freeway is now 36 years old. It is one of the most heavily trafficked sections of freeway anywhere in Australia. I have been running a campaign to force the federal government to provide the $80 million that is required to widen the F3. Today, I wish to present to parliament a petition with 11,733 signatures from electors all around New South Wales, particularly from my electorate. I want to thank the residents and businesses of the Central Coast for their efforts in collecting these many hundreds of signatures. I would also like to thank my colleague Phillip Ruddock, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, for his assistance in collecting petitions. I call on the federal government to provide the urgently needed funding of $80 million to widen the bottleneck on the F3 so that commuters are not delayed every single week in traffic delays in the Mount White section of the F3. It is the vital arterial road between Sydney and all areas north and it is important that it is kept free flowing. We need the money to widen the F3 as quickly as possible. (Time expired)0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr Bartlett—I second the motion and reserve my right to continue my remarks.16:04:0024939Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I rise to support this motion, particularly the first part of it. There is no doubt that the death toll on our roads over the Christmas holiday period was a tragedy of immense proportions. I represent an electorate that is bisected by the Pacific Highway from Raymond Terrace right through to past Bulahdelah. The Pacific Highway is notorious for tragic accidents. Also, when I throw in roads like Nelson Bay Road, the Buckets Way, which leads from the Pacific Highway to Gloucester and back to Taree, and also the Lakes Way, all of those roads have had fatalities in recent months, some of them multiple, quite tragic fatalities—I guess every fatality on a road is a tragedy. We had one during the holiday break when a whole family was wiped out in a single accident. I would also like to speak of my membership of Raymond Terrace Lions Club because for a long time we have consistently provided Driver Reviver facilities at Raymond Terrace. It is interesting to do that duty—I like doing it—because you meet people and talk to them about road and traffic conditions and about their expectations. There is no doubt that one of the major problems in the Raymond Terrace area has been the fact that people exiting Sydney have been travelling up the Pacific Highway on a four-lane, divided highway with a 110-kilometre speed limit and then suddenly it comes to a stop and they go back to a two-lane, non-divided road with rough surface conditions and roads that are not engineered. Having travelled for a couple of hours at 110 kilometres, they do not adjust their speed to suit the new conditions and that is one of the major problems. The other is the frustration that will happen when coming down to two lanes at peak traffic time. If people are hot or if families are travelling with a couple of kids they are not in the ideal situation and drivers tend to do things they would not normally do. I would like to have a look at this furphy about the $1.6 billion. I notice that the member talks about $1.2 billion in his motion. It is easy to lose $400 million here and there; this government seems to be able to do it regularly.A media release has been delivered to all members today by the Local Government Association. I think this is the crux of the matter: local governments of Australia are responsible for 85 per cent of Australia's road network and yet they receive only six per cent of the funding for roads. Eighty-five per cent of roads; six per cent of the money: that is the problem. If this government are prepared to stand on their record and say, `Aren't we great; let's clap our hands; let's give ourselves a pat on the back', so be it. We can go further and see that in real terms, in terms of GDP, what has happened with federal assistance grants since 1996 when this government came into power is that funding has dropped constantly. It has gone from 0.23 per cent of GDP down to 0.20 per cent, or a little less actually, of GDP. In fact, this media release says, `Okay, the Roads to Recovery grant will be a short-term thing; there is no guarantee it will continue.' There is every guarantee it will not suffice; there is every guarantee it will not give Australia the roads we need. IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr Lloyd—How much did you give us?UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I am quite happy to talk about that because I mentioned the Pacific Highway. In 1995 when Laurie Brereton and Michael Knight signed off on the Pacific Highway to say that the federal government would be involved, we were committed to $750 million. This government have cut their contribution back to $600 million, and that is why the Pacific Highway reconstruction has come to a dead stop just north of Raymond Terrace. The last section was built purely by state funding, so do not come in here and say to us, `Let us get the state governments on to it.' Honour your obligations; honour your commitments. (Time expired)16:09:0024940Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—I am pleased to second this motion. The loss of life on our nation's roads causes far greater suffering and grief than can ever be measured by the alarmingly high road toll statistics. Certainly I would like to add to the expression of sympathy to families and friends of those who have died on roads, not just over the holiday period but at any time. Certainly tackling this unacceptably high road toll requires a multipronged strategy. Many things need to be done. One essential ingredient involves improving the standard of our roads, and that includes increasing and better targeting road funding. This government has been doing exactly that. This government has been increasing spending on roads and has been more accurately targeting spending on roads—not only through the National Highway Program, which is only one aspect of road funding, but through other road programs as well. The Roads of National Importance program that was commenced under this government has seen a massive injection of funding for highways—not national highways but other highways that were not being funded under the former government. There has been increased funding for local roads in two ways, one of which is through the reintroduction of the Black Spot Program—the program that the Labor Party scrapped— to tackle notoriously bad accident spots. It has been reintroduced under this government. There is now, too, the new $1.6 billion Roads to Recovery program which will mean a massive injection of funding for local governments to help them with local roads. It is clear that this government is serious about improving the standards of our nation's roads and thereby is doing what it can in that regard to reduce the horrific road toll.I am pleased to indicate that in my electorate, the electorate of Macquarie, we have benefited greatly from this government's increased road funding. Firstly, under the Roads of National Importance program, the RONI program, this government has allocated $100 million to improve the Great Western Highway through the Blue Mountains. This was money that Labor spokesmen before the 1996 election said would never be able to be committed by a federal government because it was not a national program. But the Howard government has delivered this money for the Great Western Highway. Two weeks ago at Linden I was delighted to open the bridge across the railway line, the first of four major projects to be funded with this $100 million. Work is about to start on Soldier's Pinch, a notorious spot for fatal accidents in the Blue Mountains; and shortly after that a bridge over the railway line at Medlow Bath is to be built and then Shell Corner will be worked on. In addition, the Roads to Recovery program is increasing by 72 per cent direct funding for the Blue Mountains City Council and for the Hawkesbury City Council to improve local roads. That means that the Blue Mountains City Council will get an extra $611,000 a year for each of the next four years and the Hawkesbury City Council will get an extra $726,000 a year for the next four years. This government is serious about helping with these roads. I call on the state government of New South Wales to match this spending. The New South Wales Labor government has badly failed the people of the Hawkesbury by failing to address the needs of Windsor Road—one of the worst arterial roads in New South Wales. Clearly it is a state government arterial road. The neglect of it has badly affected residents, commuters, businesses and tourists, and it is even discouraging businesses that would locate in the Hawkesbury area if we had an adequate road system—that is, the missing 10-kilometre link between Garfield Road and Windsor. The Labor government has been talking about some nebulous 10-year plan. This needs to be brought forward. Each day 24,600 vehicles use this road. This is more vehicles than use many dual-lane roads throughout Sydney on a daily basis, yet there is only one lane in each direction. It is time that the Carr government did something about this. In fact, six years ago, in 1995, Bob Carr promised that if he was elected he would make the length of this road dual carriageway within his first term of office; yet six years later nothing has been done. I call on the New South Wales government to match the commitment of the federal government to roads by delivering this long overdue funding for the Hawkesbury, for Windsor Road, and to stop neglecting the people of Hawkesbury. It must do something to alleviate this massive road problem. It is time that the New South Wales government delivered on the much needed improvements to upgrade Windsor Road. It needs to act quickly and it needs to act now. 16:14:0024941Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I support the first two clauses in the motion, and I sympathise totally with the sentiments of dismay and sorrow at the dreadful accidents that have taken place throughout Australia not only over the Christmas-New Year period but also throughout the year. I take nothing away from the member for Robertson's sincere wish to help alleviate the pain of families who have lost friends and family in those accidents, but I do not believe it is roads that are necessarily to blame for these deaths.Of course we have to maintain an effective and safe road transport network, but we also have to maintain an affordable means of travel; a good and effective train network and a reliable network of public transport of all descriptions—road, rail and air. It is not feasible to ask the state and territory governments to fund to the same level as the Commonwealth. They have not recently sold off assets and gained large amounts of surplus money to put into the building of roads in order to be able to meet the same expenditure put in by the federal government.The whole question of funding roads and transport in Australia is a vexed one. There seem to be so many agendas and very little strategic planning and thinking going into where we should be going with road funding. I think it is about time that some of this government's throw-away money was more specifically targeted. Firstly, the cost of fuel must be brought down. This impacts on more people than roads ever will. Then we must start looking at who wants to go where, why and how. If these questions could be considered on a national basis rather than by playing one state off against another, it is possible we could get a proper transport strategy for Australia, that we could start looking at some real overall benefits.There is an old theory in transport study circles: the more roads that get built, the more cars will find their way onto them. Whatever you do, it will be a vicious circle unless one can break that circle and start afresh in looking at need and solutions. The more money thrown at the national highway, the more cars will feed into the national highway and the more accidents will happen purely through the strength of numbers and probabilities. That is a reality that we should face up to and accept as a reality.Driver education is important. Alternatives to driving must be considered. Australia has always taken the lazy way out: we have had a small population and huge distances to travel, so the thought has been to let everyone purchase a vehicle and do their own thing. The trouble is the different skills of people who are on the road at the same time—some going on a daily drive, some on a monthly drive and some venturing out probably in between. Ideally, drivers could be separated into competencies and be licensed for certain roads, but I think there would be a great uproar from industry and from individuals if we even tried to put that one on the agenda. We do it with young people; we should do it with everybody. Then there is the question of fatigue. Professional drivers on long distances can make mistakes, usually because they are pushing the envelope of endurance. They do it mainly for economic reasons—and I think reports to that effect have been handed down in this House by the honourable member for Hinkler—to try to pay for their business and to make a living for their families. It is a lethal mixture.If the member for Robertson really wants to help people to get to their destinations safely, funds should be put into developing safer travelling conditions. These should include considering how to give people convenient alternative travel at equivalent cost and to make those still driving less susceptible to mistakes through driver error. We should be taking the opportunity in Australia to look at a broader picture than just saying, `We are going to throw money at this part of our national highway or at some other road that the member for Macquarie was talking about.' We should be specifically looking at an overall strategy for transport and transport conditions and where our people want to go to and from. (Time expired)16:19:0024942Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I join with my colleagues in expressing dismay and sorrow at the number of fatal accidents that occurred on the nation's roads during the Christmas-New Year period. It is always sad when life is cut short and even sadder that many of these fatalities could have been prevented. As someone who lost his own father in a motor accident, I know the reality of that only too well.I note that last year 20 per cent of road fatalities were unrestrained; in other words, passengers and drivers did not wear seatbelts. That is a very disappointing statistic. Obviously there is still a level of complacency in the community about seatbelt usage, and road safety campaigns are being ignored or taken for granted. This is one area where we can improve things. We have done a lot in the control of alcohol and speed, albeit at a higher level of control than in the past. But it is interesting to reflect—and I do not say this to have a swipe at this particular state—that New South Wales, the state that has the toughest laws, that doubles the demerit points over the holidays and that has Safetycam for its truck drivers, had nearly as many accidents as the rest of Australia put together.So we have to look even beyond that. We have to look to those other things that might be causing road accidents. Of course the roads themselves are one thing. The Roads to Recovery is a good program. In my electorate, it will mean that shires will get between a quarter of a million dollars and a bit over $1 million each. It will mean, for example, in the shire of Isis, that over 50 per cent of the rural roads will now be sealed. It is a very good program. Work on the Bruce Highway in my electorate is marvellous north and south of Bundaberg—the Gunalda Range, Tim Fischer Bridge, Three Mile Creek Bridge, the Colosseum stretch. A whole range of things have been put there by the Commonwealth government, but I think we have to go a bit further still.One thing that my colleague from Tasmania just referred to is fatigue. It is important that drivers stop and rest every two hours, especially if they are feeling tired. Members of parliament are probably the worst offenders of the lot, because we push ourselves and push ourselves. The standing committee on transport, which I chaired, looked at fatigue in its report Beyond the midnight oil. Broad ranging research suggests that fatigue is four times more likely to adversely affect drivers than do drugs or alcohol, so it is really a major area of concern.We took evidence all over Australia and found that the cost of fatigue in motor accidents could be as high as $3 billion a year. That is a huge cost to Australia, to say nothing of the emotional cost when a fatality or a permanent injury occurs. People talk about fatigue, but they do not really come to grips with it. We need a culture of anti-fatigue education, in much the same way as we had the Life Be In It campaign—the `Norm' ads that everyone joked about but that everyone watched—and the Do the Right Thing campaign, with the kid putting the lolly paper in the rubbish tin, or the Clean Up Australia campaign, which we have just been through in the last couple of days. Those sorts of things keep punching it home to the community. I think the shock ads, such as the `bloody idiot' ads, have some impact but we need a permanent, ongoing culture that people take into account and temper their judgments with when they go driving. There are lots of things we could do. For example, we could have a television campaign. We could double the number of roadside stopover areas, not only for trucks but also for cars. We could make sure that slot-in at supermarkets and warehouses was such that drivers who had been on the road for 12 hours did not have to waste another three or four hours getting rid of their loads. We should be looking at Professor Drew Dawson's computer modelling of rostering and things like that, which could make things safer for the trucking industry. On top of that, we should make fatigue management profiles obligatory for anyone who wants quality assurance. Many things could be done. (Time expired)16:24:0024943Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on national roads. The loss of life in car accidents is tragic. I think everyone in this House over the years would have been affected by the loss of a loved one to road trauma. As you drive along any highway and quite a few of the local roads and rural roads in Australia, you observe the memorials. You see the crosses and the flowers on the side of the road. You see the memorials that families have put down by the road to reflect the loss they have suffered, their loved ones having died there. I guess people want to remind road users of the danger involved in driving on that particular stretch of road. The memorials serve as an important reminder. We need to be cognisant of the need felt in the community to improve road safety. Recognising that the families of people who have died as a result of road trauma want to somehow educate others about the dangers on the road, we have to transmit their effort into a national effort to improve how we respond to the realities of danger on the road. I am a great supporter of the Black Spot Program, which seeks to identify areas of particular risk to motorists. Certainly in my electorate a number of these black spot areas have been identified and put in place. From the point of view of the motorist, I do about 2,500 kilometres every week. Many members of this place would do so as well, representing rural electorates. I find the black spots to be an important identifier of areas which might be dangerous. When people come from Melbourne to my electorate they can be a little intimidated by the roads sometimes. I find it heartening to know that there are in place these black spot identification signs which alert motorists who might not be particularly used to the roads in our area to the areas of particular risk. In my electorate a number of important road projects will contribute to the safety of motorists in our district, not the least of which is the Pakenham bypass. The state government has allocated in the VicRoads forecast $100 million towards this important project. Whilst the Commonwealth government in 1998 announced that it would contribute $30 million towards the project, we have yet to see that money forthcoming. We would like to see a bipartisan effort by the Commonwealth government and the state government towards building this project. We have a commitment of $100 million from the state government towards this project.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member for McMillan will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Grievance Debate24943Question proposed:That grievances be noted.249442494416:28:0024944Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I want to address one of the most serious health issues facing Australian governments, and that is the maldistribution of GPs across Australia. It is a well-known and accepted fact that, whilst we have a considerable oversupply of doctors in city and metropolitan areas, there exists a serious shortage in rural and remote areas. Indeed, a study undertaken by the Hunter Urban Division of General Practice shows that, while in Fairfield GP services number 7.52 services per person each year, in outback New South Wales the number of services per person per year is less than one. On the north-west slopes and in the Dubbo plains areas the number is less than three. These are serious discrepancies. Most members will be aware that in many rural areas it takes the combined effort of the local community and the local council to ensure that GP services are retained, or are accessible at all.This crisis in rural health has caused consecutive governments to initiate a number of programs designed to bolster GP numbers in the bush. I noted in question time today that the Deputy Prime Minister boasted the success of some of the latter programs—but those programs have met with only limited success. Today, I want to concentrate on those non-metropolitan/non-rural areas which fall through the cracks. The Cessnock local government area in my electorate does not qualify for a range of assistance measures made available to rural townships. The most recent official figures show that Cessnock has a doctor-resident ratio of about one doctor per every 2,200 residents. The state average is about one in 1,500. But a net loss of three doctors in recent months now renders Cessnock's ratio as high as 3,000 to one. This is a big issue for the architects of public policy. Cessnock, like Maitland, Singleton and Muswellbrook, falls into the area covered by the rural division of general practice, yet fails to qualify for initiatives such as the Rural Locum Relief Program. Some local GPs tell me that the area's classification should change. Yet I can see that the Cessnock situation hardly compares with that of more remote areas in the state. Something must be done. A decrease in doctor numbers not only has implications for patient access to medical help but also leads to a withdrawal of bulk-billing services by GPs in the township in question, which then puts additional burdens on those doctors who remain in the town. So begins a vicious circle: a doctor shortage puts onerous demands on the local GP community, some doctors leave because they simply cannot take the workload any longer, and then the situation grows worse. This is a supply-side problem that has serious implications for bulk-billing practices within an urban community. Only a fortnight ago, the local retired mineworkers' association in the Hunter held a rally in Kurri Kurri to protest against the withdrawal of those services. In Kurri Kurri older Australians, who are of course at more risk as a result of a decline in access to GP services, can no longer access bulk-billing services. That is the case in a large number of towns in my electorate.The Hunter Urban Division of General Practice has calculated that the dollar difference between what the Hunter division receives for Medicare services and what the central Sydney division receives for Medicare services is about $51.65 per head of population. So this is not just an issue about access to GP services or to bulk-billing but an issue of the equity in Medicare services. Because of an oversupply of services in the cities, much more money from our Medicare system is going into those metropolitan areas than into non-metropolitan areas. This has to be addressed. Some say that the best way of addressing this situation is to return some of that money into the divisions of general practice in non-metropolitan areas in order to allow them to set in place strategies to alleviate doctor shortages: for example, strategies which would replace some doctor services with nursing services, strategies which would allow local doctors to manage health services better by perhaps combining their services to secure economies of scale, et cetera to make them more viable—in a sense more profitable—and, therefore, make life easier for both themselves and patients trying to access GP services in the local areas. I put these issues to the government in order to highlight to the Minister for Health and Aged Care the very dire situation in Cessnock—a town of around 30,000 people—which not so long ago had 16 GPs and now has only 13 and is about to lose another. I also want to talk today about road funding, which is a very serious issue in the Hunter—as is the case in most regions in Australia—and represents an important piece of infrastructure. In particular, I want to talk about a road project in my electorate known as the Kurri Corridor. The Kurri Corridor, if ever constructed, will link the F3 freeway with the New England Highway just north of Branxton and will provide effectively a bypass of not only Cessnock and Maitland—towns which have significant traffic problems—but also many local communities in between, including Branxton, Greta, Lochinvar and Mulbring. The Kurri Corridor would also provide significant economic benefits to both the Lower Hunter and the Upper Hunter—towns like Singleton, Muswellbrook and Scone and beyond. At a meeting earlier this year of regional mayors, a very rare position was reached among them: they were unanimous that the most important road infrastructure project in the Hunter was the Kurri Corridor.When the Keating government lost office, the Kurri Corridor project was well and truly advanced, but the funding cuts that came with the election of the Howard government in 1996 have effectively stalled that project. I concede that some planning money has been dripping into the project over the last five years—but all too slowly. My advice from the RTA is that now most of the planning work has been undertaken and it is crunch time in terms of construction funding. In other words, if we do not see some construction funds made available in the government's year 2001 budget, the government must then concede that the Kurri Corridor project is on the backburner. Today I appeal to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and to the government generally not to drop the ball on this important road project—a road project which is about safety, which is about providing significant and much-needed bypasses of a number of communities in my electorate and which will, as I said, provide significant economic benefits to the Upper Hunter and beyond, even out to towns in the New South Wales west such as Dubbo.Finally, can I take this opportunity to send birthday wishes to a couple of local Cessnock and Kurri identities, both life members of the Australian Labor Party, who very recently celebrated their birthdays. The first is Mick Frame, a former Deputy Mayor of Cessnock and a life member of the party, who turned 90 years of age. The second is Mr Vince Chalkley, again a life member of the party, a longstanding alderman of Cessnock Council and a former ambulance officer, who turned 80 last week.2494516:38:0024945Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Today I want to grieve about the marketing technique of Readers Digest. Several weeks ago, I was contacted by a relative of one of my elderly constituents, concerned that his elderly relative had a debt to Readers Digest of over $900. The gentleman in question is over 90 and had been a customer of Readers Digest for many years. Rather than appreciate their good customer, Readers Digest took advantage. My constituent received countless offers that implied that he was about to win a prize when in fact, as we all know, the likelihood of that was extremely small. Lured on by these enticements—and maybe my constituent was not as acute mentally as he once was—my constituent proceeded to purchase the offerings and ended up with this considerable debt. He then received correspondence from the Readers Digest debt collection agency demanding payment. At the same time that he was receiving these debt notices, Readers Digest was still sending him letters urging him to buy more products and implying that a cash prize was just a purchase away. I would like to read from that correspondence that Readers Digest was sending to my constituent. Of course, I will change the name; it will not be my constituent's actual name. The letter says: ISSUED TO MR [DOE]PRICE AWARD COMMISSION PROGRESS REPORT... ... ...... you have made at least [300] purchases—I have changed the number, and my number is actually smaller than the number of books quoted in the letter—one of your most recent being Great Expectations, which has been duly recorded. Further, it has been determined that your name has not yet appeared on our Winners List.As a result, the Committee is of the unanimous opinion that you, Mr [Doe], be recognised for your excellent customer standing and be fully compensated with opportunities to become a Reader's Digest prize winner. Consequently, the Committee has recommended that Mr [Doe] be nominated to have an opportunity to win the sum of not less than $70,000 CASH. ...To process your nomination for the Thank You Prize you could win in a customers-only draw when you say `YES' to THE COMPLETE WIND IN THE WILLOWS—may I suggest that a gentleman over 90 might already have read The Wind in the Willows—you have been issued the enclosed Prize Claim Certification. ... Upon completion and return as directed, this Certification shall confirm Thank You Prize eligibility for Mr [Doe]. ...This Thank You Prize has received full approval from all governing authorities charged with the dispensation and awarding of prize monies offered herein. ...In closing, I wish to extend my sincerest congratulations on your Thank You Prize nomination. On behalf of the entire Commission, thank you for your continued interest in Reader's Digest products. And thank you in advance for saying “YES” to THE COMPLETE WIND IN THE WILLOWS.How many elderly people and people in quite probably dire circumstances get sucked in by this sort of marketing, which implies that there is a prize: `Just ask for one more book and that prize will be yours!' Indeed, I have it from the relative of my constituent that that is exactly what this elderly man thought. He was checking the mail every day to see if his prize had arrived, and I think that giving a false impression is totally unscrupulous. I have read to you what he was being sent inducing him to buy; at the same time, he was receiving from Readers Digest a final notice, `FINAL NOTICE' being in capitals:We are disappointed you have not settled your account with Reader's Digest.Failure by you to rectify this situation NOW will leave us no alternative other than to authorise action for recovery of the debt.Details will be passed to our DEBT RECOVERY DEPARTMENT.If you wish to avoid the embarrassment of such action PLEASE SEND YOUR PAYMENT NOW.Elderly people—unlike some of us, who get a bit used to some of these techniques—take these threats of debt collection very seriously. To them it is an absolute disgrace to be in debt, and they worry if they have not got the money to pay that debt; and this is what is happening to this particular gentleman. I can only deplore the methods that Readers Digest uses to induce people who perhaps do not know better to buy things that, I suspect, in many cases they do not want and do not need. Frankly, I believe that Readers Digest promotional activities border on the unscrupulous. I am using this statement in the grievance debate to warn my other constituents so that they do not fall into a similar trap. Hopefully, this statement today will give them a more realistic appreciation of the type of marketing that Readers Digest sinks to. What was most concerning about this whole episode is that, while my constituent was receiving letters urging him to buy more products, he was at the same time receiving intimidating notices from the Readers Digest debt collection agency.I have looked through all the clippings in regard to Readers Digest and I have found that they have been boasting that over the last years they have been increasing their already considerable profit, which I believe is in the area of $260 million in one country alone. They are increasing it by powering up their marketing methods. We in this country have to warn our consumers. I will be writing to the appropriate ministers, asking what we can do about this. I will be writing especially to the minister sitting at the table, the minister responsible for consumer affairs, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, Mr Joe Hockey, asking him what we can do in Australia to protect people from this type of unscrupulous marketing. 2494716:45:0024947Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I rise to speak today in this grievance debate on an issue which is of prime importance to my role as federal member for Prospect. My electorate of Prospect has benefited over the years from policies—mainly from the previous government—which promote migration, diversity and cultural tolerance. My electorate covers a large proportion of the local government area of Fairfield, and I might remind the House that 52 per cent of the population of Fairfield local government area were born overseas. I have represented the area of Fairfield at all three levels of government for more than 30 years and I have built some very close relationships with many of the cultural groups and societies within my electorate. I have also formed close personal and professional associations with many of the families who have come to Australia and choose to live in my electorate.At the last census, it was recorded that more than 120 languages other than English were spoken in my electorate of Prospect. I would like to put on the record that this is one of the highest numbers of languages spoken in the home of any electorate in Australia. Migrants from Europe, Asia, the Middle East and many other parts of the world have lived in my electorate for many years, having moved to Australia in the hope of starting a new life. Many of them are small business owners; they are workers; they are families; and they all, in their own way, contribute to the social cohesion of the community that I represent. Much of the success of migration in my electorate was due to the policies—and I repeat this for the member for Scullin, who is in the chair—of the previous Labor government and the previous Prime Minister, who openly embraced the benefits of immigration and cultural diversity.I heard the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs speaking in this parliament last week, heralding the success of this government's immigration policies. I was shocked to hear the minister standing in this chamber claiming that, due to his policies, integrity had been restored to Australia's migration program. It is interesting that the minister chose the word `integrity' to describe the policies of the immigration portfolio, because this is a word which for me conjures up images of honour, fairness and decency. I am quite sure that this government—certainly by its actions—lacks all of these qualities. In his answer to a question on that day, the minister was quoting from a report recently released by Econtech, which stated, and I am quoting the minister here:...annual consumption per head ... will be boosted by $257 per capita by the year 2007-08. Work force productivity will be about 0.08 per cent higher by that same year in comparison with what it would have been under the former policies. Of course, he was speaking from a report that was released over the skilled migration program. The minister went on to quote from the report, saying that the participation rate in the labour force had been 0.62 per cent higher since the previous government. The minister also quoted a report from Chris Richardson from Access Economics which stated that, because of the redirection of the policy of migration, the Commonwealth had saved $1.4 billion over five years.One thing these statistics highlight is the increasing emphasis this government is placing on valuing the worth and the contribution of migrants to this country only in economic terms. Both these reports and the minister rationalise the value migrants have made to Australia strictly in terms of monetary gains. I believe that migration in this country should not be measured only in money terms: migrants benefit Australia in ways which simply cannot be measured. Cultural diversity provides a huge and undeniable social and cultural benefit to this wonderful country. One thing which I find outrageous—and I was outraged last week—is that the minister claims the policies of the former government in regard to migration were based around family reunion policies and that this government has redirected migration towards attracting skilled migrants, thus saving the Commonwealth $1.4 billion in four years. This just shows the cold-heartedness of the government's ideology, because everyone knows that the family is absolutely vital to the peace, happiness and wellbeing of any individual in any community. Without the structure of the family, we have to ask, where would many of us be now? Especially in migrant communities, families are crucial for establishing a support base and for providing a safety net for those people who have made our country their new home and are prepared to work hard.How can the minister justify placing an economic value on the worth or the potential worth of a migrant? I find this offensive to the thousands of people in my electorate—the people I represent—who have migrated to Australia to start new lives or to be reunited with their families. The minister, in one of the most offensive comments I have heard in this House, said:I am sure honourable members would be pleased to see the outcome of the remodelling of the immigration program to put an important emphasis on keeping the program balanced in terms of skill as against other categories which have adverse economic outcomes.We can all see what the minister is saying. He is implying that the family reunion program was a waste of money and a drain on the Commonwealth's purse. I say to the minister that you simply cannot measure—again, I repeat myself—the value of family reunion programs for migrants in monetary terms. Family reunion is often the basis of happy migration. Many people may need the support of their families when they come to Australia so they can stand on their own two feet and start to make a living. This is a country whose population and development was built on migration. Many of our great scientists, doctors, sports stars, and religious, political and community leaders have come from migrant backgrounds. If not, they have been migrants themselves. I am sure the minister at the table, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, would not question that topic. I would say to particularly the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs that not all of these leaders and successful people were the highly skilled, highly trained, economically viable migrants that the minister would like to see now make up our entire migration program. Who is this minister to justify through economic reasoning that a migrant who does not fit the skilled migrant criteria of this government will not one day, through hard work and determination, become a lifesaving surgeon, for example, a leading scientist or a religious or a community leader—or enter this parliament and even become a leader of this country?My electorate has so many people who have come from so many different countries. Having been reunited with their families, the vast majority of them are very hardworking indeed. They hold down good jobs and they contribute to society in so many ways and their value in simple economic terms cannot be measured. The way the minister implies that only skilled migrants are useful to this country is insulting to the many people I represent, and his comments show what little respect he really has for these people or really how much `integrity' his migration policies have.We all live in this one country—19 million of us on a land mass almost the size as that of the United States. We come from different places and Australians are made up of different colours and races. This country relies on a non-discriminatory and a caring immigration policy, and it must take into consideration the fact that many migrants plan to start again in Australia and are prepared to start at the bottom and to work hard to work their way up. That is what our migration policy must reflect. But under this government—and after the minister's comments in this chamber—it is quite clear that the old style of rich, middle-class, educated immigration is back. It is back with a vengeance. Australia can no longer hide behind the white picket fence that this government is keeping us behind. We need to start understanding other parts of the world and understand the full benefits to society of all migrants. Australia is the land of the fair go and the land of opportunity. This government is not reflecting the egalitarian Australian ethos of a fair go by allowing only migrants from a particular background into this country. This country has a history of cultural diversity. Our indigenous people have always had a rich variety of languages and different customs. Members of the First Fleet came from a number of different ethnic backgrounds. We have all seen, and we acknowledge, how damaging to the progress of this country the policy of White Australia was. We as a country can either move forward or regress, and after hearing the comments of the minister in the House it looks as though we have already regressed and that the government are starting to economise and rationalise our migration and our migrants into their monetary worth. I again appeal to the minister and the government to give due consideration to the people who are waiting to join this country through family reunion but, more particularly, to not measure their worth in the first generation. I have always believed, with the contribution that migrants make to this country, that if we do not gain the first year we do in 10 years or 20 years time. One has only to go to schools in my electorate to see the value of education for these children because their parents have persevered and they have worked with their children so that they had a better life in Australia as educated human beings. I believe they are the leaders of tomorrow and that we have benefited through their parents, who have made the sacrifice, having to come to this country. (Time expired)2494916:55:0024949Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—Brisbane and Sydney newspaper readers woke up yesterday morning to see front page headlines blaring out a $39 airfare between Sydney and Brisbane. We are seeing some tremendous advances in airfare competition around Australia at the moment: new services being announced from Brisbane to Townsville for $99 and from Brisbane to Adelaide for $99, a similar fare between Sydney and Adelaide, and the expansion of the two new entrants into the airline business. That, added to the fact that this year we will receive more than five million international visitors through our tourist products, plus the fact that we have had the most brilliant exposure of Australia as a destination by virtue of the coverage of the Olympic Games, would give us great hope as to just how the tourism industry may develop in years to come—and I hope that those hopes are going to be fulfilled.One of the great virtues that we have at the moment, apart from the exposure that the Olympic Games has given us, is the fact that we have a fairly competitive rate on the Australian dollar vis-a-vis most of the major world currencies. The reality is that Australia at the moment is quite a good value destination for people to make long-haul trips from the UK, Europe and the United States to. But there are at the moment a couple of signals on the wall, of which we should be somewhat careful. It is not for me to try to dent the impact that tourism is making but rather to urge the government, the industry itself and the state authorities to be aware of some of the pitfalls that might be just around the corner.I say this because unfortunately, 20 years into the development of Australian international tourism, there is a tendency in some areas to still regard tourism as an industry of froth and bubble. That probably prevails in a number of the bureaucracies around Australia, and I think that sometimes within the industry itself there is the tendency towards a cargo cult mentality—that everything will be right, international tourists will just drop out of the sky and we will make our money. These are the warning signs of which we should be very careful, and I would like to bring them to the attention of the House and the government today. No-one would deny that the Australian Tourist Commission is probably the best international tourism promoter in the world, and I pay tribute to the work done by the commission over the last 20 years in making sure that Australia is regarded as a prestigious destination. However, the commission has some difficulties at the moment, not the least being how to make its funds go around to the newly emerging markets. It has another difficulty inasmuch as the exchange rate, while it is good for inbound tourists, has cut its expenditure overseas by up to 20 per cent in some markets. I hope, as we approach the budget, that the government will consider, if we are going to continue the sort of promotion that we have enjoyed in recent years, making certain adjustments to ensure that it can not only continue the promotion in the already established markets but also start looking at stimulating some of the lesser markets that are coming online.One of those markets is South America. There is tremendous interest at the moment in places like Chile, Argentina and especially Brazil, yet our operation in South America amounts to one person visiting these countries occasionally and setting up an office in the backroom of a Qantas-British Airways establishment in Sao Paolo in Brazil. I do not think people realise just how much the South American market has developed, the wealth that is contained in those three countries and the desire for those people to look for new tourist markets. Traditionally, they have always gone to Europe and the United States. At one stage they flirted with South Africa, but South Africa is a difficult destination and now they are looking towards Australia. I think the Australian beach volleyball team in the Olympic Games was probably one of the greatest promotions that we could have had in that particular market. The reality is that people are looking at coming here. This brings me to the second thing that I think we should be fully aware of. With the recent announcements of Ansett's results, we heard that Ansett are going to re-establish themselves as an international carrier and that from next year you will be seeing a major increase in Ansett services, probably to United States. I also understand that they will continue to develop their Hong Kong and Japanese market and that there is a remote possibility that they will be undertaking some European services. Those particular services, of course, would all be into mature and developed markets. What is really of concern is the decision by Qantas to pull out of some of their routes, and I am not blaming Qantas for this. Obviously, if they cannot make money out of markets like Canada and China, which is really an emerging market, that is a commercial decision, but it effectively takes away the Australian Tourist Commission's capacity to be able to stimulate those markets. The international airlines make a major contribution to destination promotion and Qantas has been absolutely no exception, particularly in places like China.The exit of Qantas from those markets means that it is going to be very much more difficult for the Australian Tourist Commission and the industry generally to get the sort of promotion that is required to keep that particular market going. We need to be aware of that. If we get this rationalisation of international services, and indeed it is already happening out of Europe—we have seen carriers like KLM, Alitalia and Lufthansa pull out of their Australian runs because they cannot make a dollar on them and I do not think that anybody around here would disagree with the fact that the alliance situation probably benefits Australia less than most other countries—we must make sure that we have that capacity and we continue to encourage foreign carriers to come into Australia, even if our own particular carriers are not interested in operating those particular routes.I know that there are a series of international negotiations going on at the moment between Australia and a number of countries trying to get fairly open international agreements going. One of those negotiations is between Australia and the Scandinavian countries. It is somewhat ironical that about 23 years ago the subject of Australia-Scandinavia air routes was often debated in this House and the government of the day decided not to go ahead. Well, 23 years later it is not too late, because some of the biggest emerging markets are actually the Danish, Swedish and even Finnish markets in terms of the number of international backpackers that are arriving at our doors. It is important that we keep those aviation routes flexible and that we are able to pick up the capacity of the carriers as soon as we need them and allow the Australian Tourist Commission to come home and to make the adjustments in those markets to ensure we get that flow-on. One of the great misconceptions that we have in Australia is about the value of the backpacker market to Australian tourism. In the old days, a backpacker was regarded as somebody who came to Australia with one clean T-shirt and a ten-dollar note and, while they were here, changed neither. In actual fact, backpacking has developed into the biggest spending market that we have. The numbers that are flowing through New South Wales and Queensland are quite incredible. Admittedly, they stay longer than most tourists, but they spend more than most tourists. A backpacker these days is anybody aged from 17 to 70 who is not terribly interested in five-star accommodation but is prepared to undertake adventure travel and, most importantly, visit our regions. Of course, it is in these regional areas where tourism is most required. Congratulations to those who are promoting the concept of backpackers moving through those regional areas of Australia, because you are doing a good job and you are providing employment and local consumption in rural areas where it is most needed.The other matter that I wish to raise tonight—which is also a warning—is on international shopping. While we have made very real concessions in being able to refund the GST on major purchases by tourists, the system is not really working quite as well as it could. I think there needs to be a great deal of education amongst Australian retailers to cash in on that particular market and to make sure that the refund system that we have got—which is undertaken by Customs—is streamlined. Maybe it could even be contracted out one day to ensure that it works well. There is huge potential in international shopping. I will quickly cite a case where I went into a major retailer in Queen Street, Brisbane, a couple of Sundays ago. Ahead of me were Americans who wanted to buy $500 worth of crystal and tendered American dollar travellers cheques to pay for it. The young lady behind the counter told them that they were not acceptable and asked them if they had a credit card. `No,' they said, `we don't have a credit card, but if you would take these, we would be very grateful.' Of course, the retailer knocked back that sale and $500 walked out the door. It is that sort of thing that we just cannot afford to have happen at the moment. I would trust that the government would keep its eye well and truly on the industry. (Time expired)2495117:05:0024951Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—My grievance concerns the increasing abandonment of 5- to 12-year old children in Australia in both public and private education. This abandonment by state and federal governments of both political persuasions over the last 20 years has never been worse than under the appalling leadership of the current federal government. This abandonment of the most vulnerable age group in Australia has form. In South Australia in 1979, the then Primary Principals Association was greatly concerned at the drift of resources from the primary sector of education, both public and private. It ran a campaign called `Primary Means First'. It was a good campaign; however, it came to nothing, courtesy of the combined appalling leadership and white-anting by the then Liberal ministry for education, the South Australian Institute of Teachers and the South Australian Secondary Principals Association. Yes, that is correct: it was white-anted by two groups that should have supported them—their own union and their own colleagues in secondary schools. A couple of years later, as President of the Adelaide Metropolitan Area Principals Association, I convinced the then executive to resurrect the primary school resources campaign. Directed at a more grassroots level and called `Into the Nineties', it quickly gained the support of every primary school in South Australia except one—I could never work out why that one school opposed it. However, like its predecessor—the `Primary Means First' campaign—it soon came under attack from exactly the same sources except the leadership of the teachers union, which was then dragged kicking and screaming into supporting the `Into the Nineties' campaign. In a bid to divide and conquer the principals, the then South Australian education department decided to have its own campaign called `The Primary Review'. A highly respected principal, Marilyn Gilbertson, was appointed. It was a good review, but essentially it recommended the same actions as did `Primary Means First' and `Into the Nineties'. And what happened? Years of momentum were lost when the recommendations of the more conservative, less passionate primary review were just ignored.In 1988 in my maiden speech I focused heavily on the need to address the failing educational outcomes caused by reduced real resources and changing educational challenges confronting primary schools in Australia. The federal focus on literacy so often grabbed by this minister was actually started by me, the current member for Chifley, Roger Price, and former Labor members Mary Crawford, Carolyn Jacobsen and Elaine Darling in the first few months after the 1990 election. This action culminated in the House of Representatives report, The literacy challenge. The support then of the current member for La Trobe, Bob Charles, as deputy chair of that committee, was greatly appreciated. But what has really happened since 1996 when the current government was elected? If the only real measure of educational expenditure on schooling is applied, that is, the percentage of GDP, expenditure has fallen dramatically—from 3.6 per cent of GDP in 1983 to 2.7 per cent in 1997. That is about $5 billion. Even those dramatic figures do not show the dramatic decline in resources to primary schools. When the differential is applied to funding between primary and secondary schools, it is often two to one for exactly the same number of students. As a given, the older the learner, the easier it is to teach them, and the younger the learner the more difficult it is to teach them. I know that flies in the face of current orthodoxy, but nevertheless it is true.Unfortunately, the primary principals and their primary teachers have been next to useless as an effective lobby group in getting their message across to their secondary, TAFE and university colleagues, their unions around Australia, the state education departments, the community and state and federal governments. That has been true since the mid-1980s until now. For now there is a sliver of hope. A couple of weeks ago in Sydney the Australian Government Primary Principals Association published a report of a survey of Australian primary school principals. The report was prepared by Max Angus and Harriet Olney of Edith Cowan University. Two thousand, five hundred responses were considered. On that basis alone, the results deserve consideration. According to the report, Commonwealth and state government policies have led to the growth of the private school sector. This began in 1979, exactly the year of the first `Primary Means First' campaign. The report deals with two key questions, and I quote:The first is whether current funding arrangements provide schools with the platform they need to equip future generations of Australians for the challenges ahead. In the event that the funding arrangements fall short of what is required, the second question follows: how might the current situation be improved? I have already addressed the first part of the question. Funding for schooling is $5 billion short. That shortfall could only be addressed now in several and not one budget.There are many charlatans involved in education. Fortunately, they are easy to identify. They talk about everything except the educational program. They talk about socioeconomic status, gender, race, religion, cultural values, homophobia, misogyny and so on and so on, ad nauseum, which are important issues but, compared with the quality of the educational program, they are of secondary importance. Fortunately, good principals, good teachers, their students and parents talk about the adequacy of the educational program. An excellent educational program reduces significantly, if not altogether, the negative impacts of socioeconomic status, gender, race, religion and cultural values. The report identifies a number of matters that merit urgent attention. In the time left to me I would like to mention as many as I can. Literacy resources, obviously, were high priorities for additional funding. Needs for larger, more functional classrooms were identified. Who else other than battery chickens would be subjected to 30 persons in an area less than 60 square metres? That is what we do to children, and think nothing of it. The report states:The introduction of information communication technology has significantly increased the costs of primary schools. This is largely unacknowledged. It also requires additional expertise and increased staff time. This also is not recognised. Curriculum expectations by government and parents have meant that other curriculum areas, especially the expressive arts—music and physical education and so on—are not provided. To those subjects could be added science, arts and crafts, team sports, dance and drama. The report goes on:Restricted resources have led to some students' learning needs being determined to be of a higher priority than others. Three-quarters of Australia's principals in government schools are against funding policies based on competition theories. The current and past enrolment adjustments of federal government policies are rejected. The report identified a sound ethos in our government primary schools: attention to the most needy students, academic performance, strong work ethic, conservation of the actual environment, respect for adults and reflection of the views of the wider community. However, the report identified a falling optimism:85% of those surveyed expected that the divide between rich schools and poor schools will widen and acknowledge that working in government schools will become harder.Principals said it was not just a matter of more resources. Three main categories of change have not been acknowledged by governments: societal change, curriculum change and the implications of those changes on school facilities. Societal changes include higher levels of drug and alcohol abuse, the breakdown of traditional family structures and the impact of unemployment. Children's initial enrolments more often include large numbers of children with very poor social skills. Said one principal:Governments now treat schools as welfare burdens, they are no longer seen as nurturing talent to secure our nation's future in the world ...Parental expectations of schools have increased. The facilities in many schools are simply substandard and actually discourage parents from enrolling their children. A principal for 11 years commented that parent and government expectations have trebled. Mainstreaming disabled children without adequate resources, outcomes focus with fewer resources and additional costs for educational infrastructure, especially in IT, destroy the souls of many practitioners as they promote and delete various aspects of the curriculum they regard as essential. The views about literacy in schools are very different from the ones espoused by the federal minister. The report also states:87% of principals believe there is not enough funding allocated to the early years of schooling.That is pretty damning evidence against the literacy claims of the federal minister.Funding the foundation years of education is an investment in the future. It is like building a solid foundation. More than two-thirds of Australian children are in primary schools that are underresourced and some seriously so. Divisions between sectors and levels of governments are having a debilitating effect on primary schools. What needs to happen is outlined in the report. It is what I tried to convince the minister to inquire into last year—firstly, establish resource standards; secondly, establish a national review of resource needs; and, thirdly, introduce independent monitoring of school funding. The current resource levels of all education funding reflect history and tradition and the capacity to lobby by the various education sectors. It does not reflect educational rationale in 2001. It does not reflect the national interest. It has been expedient for the federal government through its minister, usually at question time, to gain brownie points by focusing on such an obvious need as literacy whilst ignoring the failures in the rest of the system totally. This is nothing more than deception. It is dishonest and it is destructive to the future of the nation. (Time expired). 2495417:15:0024954Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—Today, I take the opportunity in the grievance debate to continue my discussion on the difficulty of providing good and free-flowing road transport from Sydney to the northern areas of New South Wales and to Queensland—in fact, right through as far as Cairns. It is not a new issue. In fact, one of the first works undertaken by the Main Roads Board of New South Wales was the construction of a direct road link between Sydney and Newcastle. For honourable members who are not familiar with the terrain north of Sydney, it is some of the more difficult terrain. It is national park, it is very hilly and a major river, the Hawkesbury River, has to be crossed. Unlike near some other cities in Australia, the land is not flat and it has always been difficult to get free-flowing road transport to the north of Sydney.The demand for direct road access to the north arose in 1913 and persisted into the early 1920s. At that stage, there were two very roundabout routes from Sydney to Newcastle—one of them was the Great North Road via Wiseman's Ferry, which was some 165 miles in those days. In fact, so rough and arduous were the driving conditions on the two roads in 1924 that the National Roads and Motorists' Association, the NRMA, advised motorists to ship their vehicles to Newcastle if they intended to go north. Things have improved over the years! On 6 March 1925, an appeal was made to the Main Roads Board of New South Wales by the Erina Shire Council, a forerunner of the Gosford City Council. A large well-attended conference at Gosford on 6 June 1925 called for access to be provided on a road link from Sydney through to Gosford. Of course, once the road link was there, the Hawkesbury River had to be crossed. At that time they used vehicular ferries—the George Peat and the Frances Peat—and a daily traffic report for the 12 months ended 12 August 1931 showed that there had been 1,118 passengers and 508 vehicles. Things have increased slightly since then. As I said, it is not a new issue.The F3 freeway is, of course, the major arterial link from Sydney to Newcastle and on to Brisbane—in fact, virtually every vehicle heading north has to use the F3. In March 1960, they advertised for offers to construct the first section of the F3 and on 15 December 1965—some 36 years ago—5.8 miles of the F3, from the Hawkesbury River to Mount White, were opened as a tollway. A second section of 3.4 miles, from Mount White to Calga, was opened on 28 October 1966, and on 12 December 1968 a section from Berowra to the Hawkesbury River, 6.3 miles, was opened. Obviously the freeway has been progressively expanded and extended over that period and the traffic flow has continued to increase as residential areas and businesses have moved north into rapidly growing areas such as the Central Coast of New South Wales. In fact, the F3 freeway is now the most heavily trafficked road anywhere in Australia. Figures show that to maintain a free-flowing traffic run on the F3, the maximum capacity of the road is around 1,800 vehicles per hour. The maximum flow on the freeway is now close to 4,000 per hour. It never makes that number during peak hours, when it becomes a very long traffic jam, particularly on a Friday afternoon—when you have the combination of commuters heading out of Sydney trying to get home to Gosford or Wyong and the holiday or weekend traffic—and a Sunday afternoon, when people are heading back to Sydney. It is something that is very important to the people of the Central Coast and to the people of New South Wales. As honourable members would know, earlier today I tabled a petition in the House with some 11,733 signatures on it. I wanted to elaborate a little more on that issue now because time did not permit earlier. It is a significant petition. It was collected in a relatively short period, some three to four months. It involved mainly Central Coast residents but there were contributions from all over New South Wales. I particularly want to thank the many hundreds of people who took petitions, copied them and sent them to friends and relatives around New South Wales and the businesses that organised to have petitions in their businesses. I would also like to thank many elements of the local media, particularly the Central Coast Express Advocate which ran front page articles to support the campaign to widen the F3. We still do not have a result. A lot of work is being done and the federal government has been very good in providing $500,000 to look at design costings and feasibility plans and $10 million for an electronic management system on the freeway. The freeway is managed by the RTA and the New South Wales state government and I am disappointed that the New South Wales government has spent only $3 million of the $10 million available to provide that electronic information system for drivers. It would be good if they would upgrade that system so that it is more accurate and more useful to motorists. The feasibility study has shown that just to widen the section of freeway at Mount White where it goes from three lanes into two lanes, which is the major bottleneck, would cost in the vicinity of $80 million. It is a lot of money, but it is something that has to be done not just for Central Coast residents but for all of New South Wales and all of Australia. It is the main arterial road link north of Sydney. There is no alternative. I continue to call on the federal government to provide that money to allow the freeway to be widened.I want to raise another issue briefly while I have time, in relation to the Mangrove Mountain Newcastle disease outbreak. I am concerned that, whilst the farmers there have recovered to a great extent and the industry is just about to get back on its feet, the New South Wales government has now claimed that the farmers at Mangrove Mountain have to pay back the clean-up costs of that horrific outbreak of disease. The facts are simple. Under the Commonwealth-state cost sharing agreement for emergency animal diseases that was invoked at the time, the federal government paid 50 per cent of the cost and the rest was shared by the other states and territories, which meant that the New South Wales government paid approximately 20 per cent of the total costs. The New South Wales government had an opportunity to include in those cost plans the clean-up costs of this outbreak but it did not do that. It said that the industry and the farmers had to make a contribution to clean-up costs. In earlier disease emergency responses in other states and in the 1997 avian influenza outbreak at Tamworth in New South Wales, the clean-up costs have been included and the total costs were shared under that cost sharing agreement. During the Deans Park outbreak, the New South Wales government made the decision that the poultry farmers should bear the cost, and again in the Mangrove Mountain outbreak the New South Wales government made the decision that the poultry farmers should bear the costs of the clean-up. It is now sending bills of something like $20,000 to $30,000 to many of the farmers in the Mangrove Mountain area, some 12 months or longer after the outbreak. The farmers there cannot afford to pay these bills. They are only just starting to get back on their feet after what has been the most serious outbreak of Newcastle disease ever to occur in Australia. I appeal to the New South Wales government to waive those clean-up cost bills to allow the farmers of Mangrove Mountain to get on with their industry, which employs so many thousands of people on the Central Coast. I again make it very clear that the New South Wales government could have included those costs in the cost sharing agreement between the federal government and the other state governments and those costs would have been paid, and it should not now come back to the farmers and ask them to pay those clean-up costs. 2495617:25:0024956Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—One of the tragedies of our society today is the demise of those long established social, community, financial and business structures and institutions we have come to rely upon. Once it was the role of government to ensure that communities were serviced by a strong banking system and had access to that banking system. Unfortunately, this government is committed to ensuring that there is an economic environment that will ensure that banks can maximise their profits. No longer is there service to our Australian community. The important factor determining the banking service is no longer the individual Australian, families or pensioners. Their access to the service is not considered important—it is ensuring that banking consumers are second to the banks themselves. Rather than supporting the consumers, the government is supporting the banking system to create an environment that will ensure unprecedented growth of banking profits and CEOs' salaries. One of the most frequent complaints I receive from constituents, along with complaints about the GST and how that is impacting on every ordinary Australian's life, complaints from pensioners about how their pension is being eroded, about the GST and the cost of petrol, along with problems with bulk-billing and access to health funds, is this issue of banks—the Howard government's cavalier attitude to banks, their attitude to bank charges, their attitude to bank fees, their attitude to bank closures, their attitude to bank profits, their attitude to bank CEOs' salaries and their attitude to the lack of services available to ordinary, everyday Australians. These are the issues that this mean-spirited government chooses to ignore. It is only interested in looking after its friends in big business; and banking, believe it or not, is big business.We need to look at some of those issues I have just mentioned. Firstly, I must put on record that complaints to the banking ombudsman have increased by 22 per cent. This is a very significant increase which shows how much discontent with the banks there is in the community. Charges and fees have increased at enormous rates. Charges have doubled. Fees have increased by 30 per cent over the last two years. Yet this government sits on its hands. DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—What are you going to do about it?83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—It is interesting to note that the minister who is actually responsible for financial services is sitting opposite and not offering one ray of hope to the Australian people. ATM fees have increased by 28 per cent whilst over-the-counter fees have increased by 15 per cent. This is really alarming. Australians have to pay these increases and the government does absolutely nothing. Two thousand branches have closed in the last decade, and that means that 51,000 people have lost their jobs. Along with losing those jobs and the closing of those branches, we have a significant decline in service to the Australian people.Within the Shortland electorate, we have had a number of bank closures. In Toukley, Westpac has closed. The other day, the National Australia Bank sent me a fax—they did not even have the decency to come and see me, as have the other banks that have removed services from the area—to say that they would be closing their bank in Toukley. That will leave one remaining bank in Toukley, the Commonwealth Bank. The Commonwealth and Colonial banks are amalgamating the two branches within Shortland. Belmont will effectively be losing one banking outlet, as will the Charlestown area. Westpac will also be removing its services from Swansea where there is actually one bank. I find this government's heartless approach to this situation unacceptable. The alternative for people is to use ATMs. Elderly people find it very difficult to access banking services through ATMs. I was reading a report earlier today saying what a wonderful thing the Internet is for accessing banking services. Firstly, you must have a computer and, secondly, you must be able to use it—all very limited. I believe that one per cent of banking is done through the Internet. It is certainly not the elderly pensioners of Toukley and Swansea who are accessing those services. With banking services closing, other businesses are leaving those communities. Once again, that will lead to a downturn in the prosperity of the area. It will be the elderly and the disabled, the people with the least choice, who will be affected the most. If we look at the profits of banks, we can see that between 1995 and 2000 profits have increased dramatically. The ANZ Bank has gone from—I will round off the figures—$1.1 billion to $1.7 billion, the Commonwealth Bank from $1.1 billion to $2.7 billion, the National Australia Bank from $2.1 billion to $3.2 billion and Westpac from $1.1 billion to $1.7 billion. Along with these profits, the services to our communities have gone and charges have increased. It is not good enough. While on the one hand we have fewer services and higher charges, on the other hand the banks have greater profits. The CEOs of those banks have had enormous increases in their salaries. The latest figures show that salaries being paid to banking CEOs are among the highest in the country. Allan Moss at the Macquarie Bank was receiving $3.6 million in 1999, Don Argus at the National Australia Bank was receiving $2.7 million and the CEO of Westpac received $2.4 million. These salaries have continued to increase. How can you compare the parting handshake to CEOs, like the $35 million that was paid to Bob Joss, with what ordinary Australians earn and the prices they are having to pay to access banking services, along with having to fight to access those services because banks are being closed at an alarming rate?The Commonwealth Bank CEO, David Murray, has received—listen to this—a 272 per cent salary increase since he started his job in 1994. Who can receive that sort of a salary increase? I know that there are not too many Australians out there who have received that sort of salary increase in that time. It really is alarming that banks are showing enormous profits and are paying enormous salaries to CEOs while at the same time they are attacking their own staff. The dispute between the Commonwealth Bank and the Financial Sector Union has shown how banks are unmercifully trying to lower wage increases that have been paid to their workers, offering them a three per cent increase rather than the measly 6.5 per cent that they sought. So you can see that there is one rule for banking executives and one for Australian workers. The crisis in banking is symptomatic of problems in Australia—problems caused to a large extent by a callous government that promotes competition and profit at the expense of meaningful communities, a government that has led Australia to become a society of haves and have-nots, of people who are very comfortable and those who do not even have the basics they need to survive. Banking is no exception. If you live in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, your banking choices are unlimited; if you live in Toukley, the banks just keep closing. (Time expired)2495717:35:0024957Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I want to be a little pensive today, rather than grieving. Although I do not adopt the pessimism of the previous speaker, I think there is great need for change in Australia. When I look across the economic landscape of this great country, when I look at the results of recent state elections and sense the disconnection of some country people, when I seek to explain the surges in popularity of minor parties that identify problems but do not offer solutions, I ask myself: why is there such disenchantment in many parts of regional and rural Australia? I have come to the conclusion—although for many of us on both sides of the House it would not come as a surprise—that people feel a sense of disempowerment. This phenomenon has not been particularly associated with this government or for that matter even with the previous government; it has been happening over some decades. People in many areas of regional and rural Australia are victims of change over which they have little or no control. They feel there is no sense of certainty and they want someone to care. Again, the great fraud of some of these minor parties is that they make a pretence of caring but still offer no solutions. I believe the time has come to change the way we look at matters of equity. When I talk about equity it goes beyond the level of pensions or unemployment benefits—although I am not suggesting that these are not important or that they should be in any way less. I think all Australians have a right to enjoy the wealth of this country to which they all contribute, or, if you like, the pure concept of the way this country was set up a few years ago—that is, as a `common wealth'.If you take the 1996 census figures and adjust them to the year 2000 boundaries, you will find that the median family income in the electorate of Bradfield is $1,400; in Mitchell in Sydney, it is $1,235; in North Sydney, it is $1,317; in Kooyong in Melbourne, it is $1,176; in Higgins, it is $1,103; dare I say in Ryan in Brisbane, it is $1,041; and in Canberra, it is $1,056. Let me compare those figures with the figures from some country electorates. In Cowper, it is $486; in Wide Bay, it is $493; and in my own electorate of Hinkler, it is $606. You can see that there is a difference in some instances of 100 per cent between the lowest and the highest figure. In fact, in the case of Bradfield it is nearly three times.You have to ask, if that has always been the case: why should that be of any more concern now than in the past? I think for a very good reason. Just to take the price of fuel as we see it today—I am not talking about excise in particular; I am talking about the overall price of fuel—people in those poorer areas, who do not have public transport, pay more for their petrol than do the more endowed people in capital cities. They pay more for their transport, food and clothing. So in some respects it becomes a bit of a double whammy. When you look at farm incomes they have not moved very much in the last 10 years. That again I do not attribute to either the current government or the previous government, but it is a factor that should make us ask how we might protect the people in those areas.Before I deal with that, we should also look at this feeling of disempowerment. What other things might have added to that? Certainly the closure of banks has added to that—that you cannot go somewhere and discuss a loan or your affairs. There was a time when the bank manager in a country town ranked behind the doctor and the priest as the leading citizens, as someone you could trust and talk to. Sometimes, like a doctor and a priest, he could be a bit cranky but, by and large, he was one of the people you could rely on in the community. Over time we have seen the closure in a lot of those areas of government offices—in Queensland even courthouses, the visible sign of government and justice in the community, have closed—railways and, with television aggregation, local television programs. Although local news programs survived in some areas, local television programs went.Without prejudging this, because I am chairing a committee looking at this—I just want to touch on this; I am not trying to pre-empt the decision of my fellow committee members—the fact that the government had to call an inquiry into radio would seem to indicate there is something fundamentally wrong in the way country people have been treated in terms of getting information: that local news services have been taken out and that some radio stations no longer have any local content at all but are networked 24 hours a day. So it is not surprising that people feel a sense of uncertainty.We then come to national competition policy. By definition, national competition policy is concerned with all facets of government policy which influence the competitive behaviour and competitive environment of firms, individuals and government agencies engaged in the supply of traded goods and services in the Australian economy. That sounds great, and there have been some great successes—I would be the last one to decry them—in the motor, gas and electricity industries and in telecommunications. But in some other areas this has not been successful. I think part of the problem is that there has been too much emphasis on the mantra, on the economic philosophy, rather than on the rigid application of the public interest test. That has also impacted on the lives of people in regional and rural areas. We can look also at farmers and what they have to encounter. We all know that a lot of the world markets are still corrupted. I am not trying to suggest that Australia should back away from being a leader in breaking down world trade barriers. We have a commendable record on that. At the same time, we should make sure that we look after our own people as we move along. The single desk selling of commodities like wheat and sugar is absolutely essential. It has the support of the farming community and it is one of those things that gives them some sense of certainty. You cannot just throw all the balls into the air and hope that they will come down and that somehow, out of it, regional and rural Australia will suddenly walk into the land of nirvana. You must track for those people an atlas of where things are going so that they are taken along with what is happening, rather than always seeing themselves as the victims. I suppose I am asking today that we look at giving people in regional and rural areas greater certainty, that we rigidly apply public interest tests and that, where safety nets can be placed under industries, they are. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills24959The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Communications and the Arts Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2000Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 2000Bills24959S29024959Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills24959S27824959Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills24959R122224959Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills24959R1104[WORKPLACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT (TALLIES) BILL 2000]2495910000Hawker, David (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Mr Speaker has received the following message from the Senate:The Senate returns to the House of Representatives the bill for An Act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 in relation to tallies and picnic days, and for related purposes, and acquaints the House that the Senate has agreed to the bill with the amendments indicated by the annexed schedule, in which amendments the Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives.Ordered that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills24959R115024959Consideration resumed from 8 February.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 19), at the end of paragraph (a), add: (iv) that may, on its own initiative, conduct inquiries into matters related to research and research education and publish the results; and(2) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add:States includes the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.(3) Clause 6, page 4 (after line 20), after paragraph (1)(c), insert: (ca) the function of conducting, on its own initiative, inquiries into matters related to research and research education, and publishing the results; and (cb) the function of making recommendations to the Minister about matters related to research and research education; and(4) Clause 6, page 4 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add: (5) The Minister must cause a copy of any request made under subsection (2) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the request was made.(5) Clause 7, page 5 (lines 9 to 11), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) Particulars of any directions given by the Minister under this section in a financial year must be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the direction is given; and (b) included in the annual report for the ARC for the financial year.(6) Clause 10, page 6 (lines 22 to 24), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) Particulars of any directions given by the Minister under this section in a financial year must be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the direction is given; and (b) included in the annual report for the ARC for the financial year.(7) Clause 11, page 7 (lines 10 to 12), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) Particulars of any notifications given by the Minister under this section in a financial year must be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the notification is given; and (b) included in the annual report for the ARC for the financial year.(8) Clause 12, page 8 (after line 16), after paragraph (b), insert: (ba) a person who represents research students; and(9) Clause 12, page 8 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add: (2) The person mentioned in paragraph (1)(ba) must: (a) be enrolled in a post-graduate degree course at an Australian university; or (b) have obtained a post-graduate degree from an Australian university in the 12 months preceding his or her appointment.(10) Clause 52, page 29 (after line 31), at the end of the clause, add: (5) If the Minister does not approve a recommendation under subsection (1), the Minister must, as soon as practicable, cause to be tabled in each House of the Parliament copies of a report including the following information: (a) for each of the proposals recommended but not approved for funding: (i) the name of the organisation seeking financial assistance for the proposal; (ii) a description of the research program; (iii) the name and title of the person leading the research program; (iv) a statement of reasons why the proposal was not approved for funding; (b) the names of all persons who, or organisations which, provided advice to the Minister in respect of each of the proposals recommended but not approved for funding. (6) If the Minister approves for funding any proposal other than a proposal recommended for approval under subsection (1), the Minister must, as soon as practicable, cause to be tabled in each House of the Parliament copies of a report including the following information: (a) for each of the proposals approved, but not recommended under subsection (1) for funding: (i) the name of the organisation seeking financial assistance for the proposal; (ii) a description of the research program; (iii) the name and title of the person leading the research program; (iv) a statement of reasons why the proposal was approved for funding; and (b) the names of all persons who, or organisations which, provided advice to the Minister in respect of each of the proposals approved for funding.(11) Page 36 (after line 27), at the end of Subdivision D, add:61A Rules to be tabled Particulars of rules approved by the Minister under section 60 or varied by the Minister under section 61 must be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the rules are approved or varied, as the case may be; and (b) included in the annual report for the ARC for the financial year in which the approval or variation occurs.Senate's further amendments—Amendment in place of Senate amendment (1)(1)Clause 3, page 2 (after line 19), at the end of paragraph (a), add: (iv) that may, on its own initiative, conduct inquiries into matters related to research and research education and publish the results, provided that the performance of this function does not prejudice the performance of its functions under subparagraph (i), (ii) or (iii); andAmendments in place of Senate amendments (8) and (9)(2)Clause 12, page 8 (line 17), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) 9 other persons, including one higher degree research student.Note: The heading to clause 14 is altered by omitting “8” and substituting “9”.(3)Clause 14, page 9 (line 2), omit “The 8 Board members”, substitute “The 8 non-student Board members”.(4)Clause 14, page 9 (line 6), omit “this section”, substitute “subsection (1)”.(5)Clause 14, page 9 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add: (4) The higher degree research student referred to in paragraph 12(c) is to be appointed by the Minister by written instrument for a period of one year from a list of at least three nominations made by the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations.17:49:0024961Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That:(a) the House insists on disagreeing to amendments Nos 3 to 7, 10 and 11 insisted on by the Senate, and(b) disagrees to the amendments made by the Senate in place of amendments Nos 1, 8 and 9 disagreed to by the House.The Australian Research Council Bill 2000 and the Australian Research Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000, as put forward in this parliament, have the intention of broadening and strengthening the ARC's role in both providing strategic policy advice to government and administering a new financial regime in support of excellent research. While the government notes that the Senate has modified some of the amendments to the Australian Research Council Bill, in particular taking account of the unworkable proposal to expand the board of the ARC, there are still a number of issues in relation to which there has been no change, and the government is not convinced that the proposed amendments will enhance the role of the ARC in the national innovation system. The government is therefore moving that the House once again reject the Senate's amendments. The amendments proposed by the Democrats and the opposition alter the balance between the performance of the ARC's statutory duty to administer its programs and inform the government on particular priorities and other priorities of the ARC's choosing. One of these matters relates to the role of the ARC in initiating its inquiries. As I previously informed the House, the ARC will be able to identify areas which are in need of further investigation through its strategic planning process. Thus, with the approval of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, the ARC will be charged with providing policy advice or possibly implementing strategies to achieve better outcomes in Australia's research effort.I would like to stress that there is nothing in this bill which prevents the ARC from drawing the minister's attention to an issue which should be referred to it for further investigation and advice. Such an approach ensures that there is regular consultation between the minister and the primary advisory body on research matters. By separating research education from matters related to research, the proposed act could be interpreted as providing the minister with the power to seek advice on a much narrower range of matters than those into which the ARC has the power to conduct inquiries. While the Senate has inserted a caveat on the powers of the ARC to conduct inquiries on its own motion, the House questions the appropriateness of inserting such a limitation in an objects of act provision. The ARC is also likely to be impeded in carrying out its functions by the administrative requirements which the Senate proposes to place on it.Firstly, it is not necessary to require the tabling and inclusion of the funding rules in the annual report. These rules, as highlighted in clause 6 of schedule 2 of the Australian Research Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000, will be the successors to the guidelines of the schemes previously administered by the ARC. As these rules will set out the eligibility criteria, assessment process and accountability requirements for funding under ARC research programs, it has always been intended that they be widely available throughout the research sector. The timely release of the rules into the public domain may be jeopardised by such a requirement.In the bill which was agreed to by the House of Representatives, both the ARC and the minister are required to meet certain accountability requirements. All ministerial requests and directions, as well as the ARC's record of how such requests were met, are required to be included in the annual report. Perhaps the House is not aware that there is no current requirement for a number of these matters to be reported at all—in particular, references from the minister and a report from the ARC concerning progress with any referrals. I remind the House that the ARC's independence in assessing excellent research proposals for funding approval is protected as the minister is prevented by other provisions in the bill from directing the ARC to recommend that a particular proposal should or should not be approved for funding. Under the present legislative framework there is no such guarantee, as section 23 of the Higher Education Funding Act 1998 provides the minister with the power to approve funding for research based on such conditions as the minister determines.In relation to student representation on the ARC, I notice that this was a matter raised by the shadow minister in a recent press release. Let me make it quite clear that there is nothing that will prevent a research student being appointed to the ARC board. In making appointments to the board, the minister must try to ensure that the breadth of academic, industry and community interests in the outcomes of research are represented and this, of course, includes the interests of research students. The current membership of the ARC is drawn from academia, industry and government. (Extension of time granted) However, there are no designated positions on the ARC board for any particular group within the sector. Many recognised interests—the ABC, learned academies and the NTEU—have equally valid claims to have the same treatment which Labor want to give to the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations. To the best of my knowledge, no Labor minister ever appointed a research student to the ARC during Labor's time in office. One can only speculate as to why they are so keen to start this process now. These amendments have been put forward by the Democrats, and part of the government's reasons for rejecting them has to do with the inappropriate selection process of such a representative. If Labor think it is necessary for student representation, why don't they move the amendments themselves? Finally, although not related to the operation of the ARC, the amendments to the Australian Research Council Consequential and Transitional Provisions Bill 2000 impose unnecessary restrictions on the availability of funding to support research and research training. The framework set out in Knowledge and Innovation will require that the funding to support research and research training is only directed to those institutions listed on the Australian Qualifications Framework registers which provide an appropriate research and research training management plan. These requirements deal solely with blocked funding for universities under the Higher Education Funding Act 1988. There is limited funding available for research organisations, such as museums, through the Australian Research Council.Let me make it quite clear and state unequivocally that private corporations will not be able to gain access to this blocked funding; nor does the bill grant the authority for institutions, such as BHP, Telstra or Microsoft to issue postgraduate research degrees. While the amendments attempt to correct a misperception of the government's intention, they also remove the access to Commonwealth funding for research and research training from at least one university currently in receipt of it. Bond University, for example, receives limited access to this funding. In 2000, Bond University received $165,000 to support the provision of high quality research training and the performance of research. It is interesting that it was the decision of the current opposition to provide Bond University with access to its first Australian postgraduate award in 1994—the same opposition which is preventing such funding from continuing. One might ask why, in the opposition's view, Bond University is no longer worthy of this funding. Here we have the extraordinary contradiction of a party which claims it supports the knowledge nation that wants to cut off funding to a university. This is really brilliant thinking!I remind the House that, while the ARC will still be in existence if these bills are defeated, there are many improvements to its operations which will not take effect—these include, most importantly, financial independence. In particular, this includes the institution of a more rigorous funding regime in which the role of the Australian Research Council has statutory authority. A new government structure will also be put in place, including placing requirements on the minister to ensure that the academic industry and community interests in the outcomes of research are represented. There will also be a chief executive officer with a distinguished record, experienced in research and management, to manage the day-to-day operations of the ARC.The government's recent statement Backing Australia's Ability recognised the importance of the Australian Research Council's role in the national innovation system by doubling its funding over the next five years. The bills currently before the House will allow the ARC greater power and responsibility to manage this additional funding, stronger links with users of research to better target its support and a strong consultative relationship with the government to better inform Australia's transformation to a knowledge economy. The government therefore moves that the House reject the Senate's amendments.17:58:0024964Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—We have seen a few backflips executed by the government in the last few weeks and days. In fact, if you look at the government's backflip on BAS, its backflip on its promise to introduce tougher laws to stop tax avoidance amongst family trusts and its backflip on taxation on petrol, I believe you could claim that the government has executed more backflips than you would see at performances of the Flying Fruit Fly Circus. We say that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs should follow the Prime Minister's lead and execute his own backflip on his continuing opposition to the amendments which are before the House. This is the third time that we will have an opportunity to vote on these amendments and it is the third time that the Labor Party will bring to the government's attention the fact that we have a very different view on the way the Australian Research Council should operate. The first point to make is: if only we could believe the words and the sentences of the minister for education when he says that this bill is about broadening and strengthening the role of the ARC, if only we could believe him when he says that this is about giving the Australian Research Council a better role in ensuring that high quality research takes place in Australia, but the problem—as we have learned on so many occasions—is that you cannot believe the guarantees given by this government and you certainly cannot believe the comments made by this minister, whether it is on funding for public schools, whether it is on his bogus claims about apprenticeships and New Apprenticeships or whether it is his statements, crossing his heart and hoping not to die, about not pursuing his plan to deregulate fees for undergraduate students at university. And you certainly cannot believe—EM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPMG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—as the member for Murray indicates—anything he says about literacy rates, simply because he uses bogus figures and statistics to compare rates of literacy both before and after the change of government. The point we make to the minister is that, when he says that he wants to broaden and strengthen the role of the ARC, he does that by restricting the powers of the ARC to initiate its own inquiries by restricting the power of the ARC to give strong and forceful advice to a minister, even on important occasions when a minister may not wish to receive that advice from the Australian Research Council. Let me give you one example. The minister in his previous comments referred to the fact that he is allowing the ARC, through the strategic review process, to draw the minister's attention to an area that might require further investigation. That proves the very point that claims by the minister that this legislation broadens and strengthens the role of the ARC are completely bogus. The ARC will no longer be able to initiate its own inquiries. The ARC will have to go cap in hand to this minister, as part of the strategic review process, and draw his attention to an area that it thinks requires further investigation. The minister has the power not to allow the ARC to carry out research in an area where it might think further investigation is required. Clearly, the ARC will no longer have the ability to carry out investigations that this minister might be reluctant for it to pursue. Why is the government continuing to oppose these amendments? We are faced with two choices: either this minister is ignorant of the importance of the issues raised or the government has a secret agenda to wind back the independence and role of the Australian Research Council. Several issues are dealt with in the amendments—and I will deal with them in some detail—but let me go through three issues in these introductory comments. Firstly, the government is rejecting the Labor Party's amendment to put a research student on the council's board—this from a government which is happy to have a former pharmaceutical industry representative on the board of the PBAC. (Extension of time granted) Let me make that point again: the government is rejecting Labor's amendment to put a research student on the ARC board but is quite happy to have a former pharmaceutical industry spokesman on the board of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and a former tobacco industry lobbyist on the breast cancer council. For some reason, the government is terrified about the pernicious influence of a research student on the board of the ARC. If you can have pharmaceutical representatives making decisions about pharmaceuticals and if you can have tobacco industry people making decisions about breast cancer, why can't the government have a research student on the Australian Research Council contributing to the debate on how we can improve research activity in Australia? The government also rejects our amendments that seek to ensure that funding provided through the Australian Research Council is not siphoned off to private corporations. We have used the examples here before of, say, BHP or Telstra coming forward and seeking to apply for ARC grants. When we raise these issues, the minister for education's representative in the Senate gives us guarantees that this is not the government's intention, and the minister has repeated those assurances here tonight. He says that it is not his intention for private corporations to access funding through the Australian Research Council. The Labor Party are not opposed to the government working with private corporations of the calibre of Telstra, BHP and others to boost Australia's research effort—God knows we need it with the decline that we have seen over the last five years in Australia's public and private research expenditure—but we believe that, if you are going to provide extra assistance to private sector research, additional funding should be put into a special account or a special program, because we cannot afford the scarce funds required for public research to be diverted into funding for private corporations. If, as the government's representatives claim, this is not the government's intention, then we say, `Please accept our amendments so that we can ensure that your bland assurances are placed in legislation to ensure that this does not happen.' We do not believe this minister. We cannot accept his word because of past experience, so we will continue to press these amendments to ensure that scarce funding for public research institutions is not diverted into the private sector. The minister intends to use the government's numbers in the House of Representatives to reject these amendments. The problem for the minister is that his representative in the Senate, Senator Ellison, gave his own endorsement to the amendments when it came to a vote on the voices in the other chamber. We also had the government's most senior higher education bureaucrat endorsing the amendments. We cannot understand why all of the minister's representatives give this a tick but, when it comes to a vote in the House of Representatives, the hardline Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, because of his ideological obsessions, once again rejects legislating against the diversion of these scarce resources over to the private sector. I have also touched on the other issue: our strong view that the ARC needs to initiate its own inquiries.We believe that these issues are of great importance, and we intend to continue to press these amendments on the government in the other chamber. I have no idea whether the government can persuade the Democrats to work with it to achieve its objectives, but I would be surprised if either Senator Meg Lees or Senator Stott Despoja in the current climate would be willing to cut another deal with the government on an area as important as funding for higher education research in Australia. We believe that the Labor Party's amendments ensure that the issues that we have raised are dealt with in a proper manner.I say to the minister today: we are prepared to consider amendments so that both Bond University and the Melbourne College of Divinity are added to the list of research organisations. We have made that clear in the debate in the other place. We believe that that will address the claimed concerns that the government has about the amendments. Our amendments will ensure that, once and for all, private corporations will not be able to suck off some of the scarce funds that we believe need to be directed to our high quality public research institutions, which have been doing such an excellent job. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative. 18:09:0024966Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the amendments made by the Senate in place of amendments Nos 1, 8 and 9 disagreed to by the House, and I move:That the reasons be adopted.18:09:0024966Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—These are the amendments which, in particular, deal with some of the issues that we dealt with before. It is, once again, a matter of seeking to ensure that the government has maximum pressure placed on it to accept the opposition's amendments to improve the operation of the Australian Research Council.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills24966R114924966Consideration resumed from 8 February.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 21), at the end of subsection (1B), add: ; and (c) the institution or body is listed in Schedule 1.(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 30) to page 4 (line 17), omit subsection (1D), substitute: (1D) For the purposes of paragraph (1B)(b), an institution or body is an accredited higher education institution or body if (and only if) the institution or body is included as a higher education institution on both of the following registers (as in force when the relevant expenditure proposal is being considered by the Minister): (a) the Australian Qualifications Framework Register of Authorities empowered by Government to Accredit Post-Compulsory Education and Training Courses; (b) the Australian Qualifications Framework Register of Bodies with Authority to Issue Qualifications.(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (lines 18 to 23), omit subsection (1E) (but not the note), substitute: (1E) The Minister may, by instrument in writing, determine requirements to be satisfied for a plan to be approved under paragraph (1C)(b).(4) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 33), at the end of the Schedule, add:8 At the end of the ActAdd:Schedule 1—Institutions or bodies eligible for special research assistanceNote: See section 23. Institutions or bodies eligible for special research assistanceItemName of institution or body1Australian Catholic University2Charles Sturt University3Southern Cross University4Macquarie University5The University of New England6The University of New South Wales7The University of Newcastle8The University of Sydney9University of Technology, Sydney10University of Western Sydney11University of Wollongong12Deakin University13La Trobe University14Monash University15Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology16Swinburne University of Technology17The University of Melbourne18University of Ballarat19Victoria University of Technology20Central Queensland University21Griffith University22James Cook University23Queensland University of Technology24The University of Queensland25University of Southern Queensland26University of the Sunshine Coast27Curtin University of Technology28Edith Cowan University29Murdoch University30The University of Western Australia31The Flinders University of South Australia32The University of Adelaide33University of South Australia34University of Tasmania35Batchelor College36Northern Territory University37Australian Maritime College38The Australian National University39University of Canberra40The University of Notre Dame Australia18:10:0024967Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the House insists on disagreeing to amendments Nos 1 to 4 insisted on by the Senate.I will not add any further comment to the comments that I have already made on the legislation.18:10:0024967Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—This is the question on which the opposition will be seeking a division to make the point that we will continue to press our amendments both in this House and in the Senate. With the government having backflipped on the business activity statement, taxation on trusts and taxation on petrol, we believe that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, should follow the Prime Minister's lead and do a backflip in accepting the opposition's amendments to the Australian Research Council legislation. These particular clauses are very important in determining who has access to funding from the Australian Research Council. This is an important matter of principle, and it is crucial to ensuring that our public research institutions continue to have access to funds that they deserve. It is for that reason that we will be forcing the House to a division on this matter.Question put:That the motion (Dr Kemp's) be agreed to.18:16:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. G.H. Adams) 74Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.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.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.62Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.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'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Fahey, J.J.O'Byrne, M.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bills24968R118024968Debate resumed from 1 March, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Bevis moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:'the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for:(1) increased job security for all Australian workers;(2) protection for workers from harsh, unfair or unreasonable dismissal, regardless of the size of the business;(3) ready access for all workers to an affordable and fair industrial umpire to deal with unfair, unreasonable or harsh dismissal; and(4) repeal of paragraph 170CC(1)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to give workers engaged under a contract of employment for a specified period of time or a specified task protection from unfair, unreasonable or harsh dismissal”.18:21:0024968Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—Before the adjournment of debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 [No. 2], I was referring to the fact that, whether by accident or by design, the opposition and non-government senators had clouded the debate by confusing unfair dismissal with unlawful dismissal, the implication being that the reform of unfair dismissal laws for some small businesses would leave the employees of those businesses without recourse when unlawfully sacked. As I pointed out previously, nothing could be further from the truth. All employees are protected from unlawful dismissal. Employers may not dismiss employees for discriminatory reasons such as sexual preference, age, union membership or family responsibilities, nor may they dismiss employees for undertaking lawful industrial action. This legislation makes no change to those protections. As the then Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business noted in his press release of 29 November last year, actions speak louder than words. Whenever it is convenient for the opposition to draw upon the opinion of small business for their own short-term political ends, they are happy to speak, but speak only, in the name of small business. Are they prepared to actually act for the interests of small business? History says no, and so does recent experience. Shortly before this House adjourned for the Christmas break, I brought to the attention of the House the intentions of the Western Australian Labor Party with regard to workplace relations. I noted that, under the then coalition government, the adult minimum wage in Western Australia had increased by $21.30 to $368 a week and that the introduction of the Workplace Agreements Act in 1993 had created more flexible and productive arrangements for employers and employees. More than 254,000 workplace agreements had been entered into by employees in Western Australia. Likewise, pre-strike ballot laws had been introduced to allow Western Australian workers a democratic vote on potential strike action. The results have been impressive. Western Australia has consistently outperformed the other states in most labour market outcomes. It was consistently amongst the best states for job creation, low unemployment and youth unemployment and has had relatively high wages growth. There has been a steady decline in industrial disputes and Western Australia's average number of working days lost was below the national average. Few of us would forget that in August last year the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia had been bullied by his federal colleagues at Labor's national conference into supporting the outlawing of individual agreements, despite his own public admission that these agreements are of benefit to Western Australian workers, particularly in the mining sector. At the time, the Labor leader admitted publicly that he held the cause of Labor Party unity and union amicability in higher regard than the interests of Western Australian workers and business. It was apparent last year that Western Australian Labor itself was no friend of good workplace relations, and I stated here in this place my fear that the total dominance of the trade union movement over any possible Gallop government would in fact see such a government attempt to dismantle Western Australia's workplace relations system. Those fears have proven to be all too accurate.Last Monday the West Australian newspaper reported that the Minister for Labour Relations, John Kobelke, had arbitrarily terminated the opportunity for Western Australian public servants to take up workplace agreements, not only to the cost of those public servants but to the cost of all West Australian taxpayers. The move will cost taxpayers millions of dollars that, of course, could have gone into schools and hospitals. Not only was the minister implicated in this imbroglio; so was the CPSU. The CPSU secretary in Western Australia, Mr Robinson, admitted that public servants on workplace agreements were paid up to four per cent more than those on awards, but he insisted that the CPSU wanted to get rid of agreements and dump those employees back onto awards. I ask: what does the CPSU stand for if not the interests of its members?Apparently the corruption of values that is transmitted from the unions to the ALP also runs the other way. The following day saw reports of clashes between rival unions in Perth on building sites. While it seems difficult to find sympathy with the AWU, media reports appear to indicate that their members at the Woodman Point wastewater treatment plant project have lost at least a day's pay plus bonuses to soothe the egos of the CFMEU. Then on 1 March there was another article in the West Australian which carries another insight:Key construction industry figures met senior police yesterday to discuss a recent rise in militant union activity on building sites.The meeting was requested by the Master Builders' Association after a spate of union visits to construction sites and claims of intimidation.Industry groups say the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union—the CFMEU—has been flexing its muscles in the wake of Labor's landslide election win.In fact, and this is another rather frightening insight into the thinking of the dinosaurs in some sections of the union movement, CFMEU assistant secretary, Joe McDonald, has been boasting in the press. I quote:He (meaning the AWU organiser concerned) has just written an article saying that he is really pleased with the relationship he has with his bosses. “Well,” said Mr McDonald, “I don't have a good relationship with any bosses.” That was this man's boast. The threat to workers and businesses in Western Australia over the next four years is very real. For the sake of Australia's small business people and workers and the unemployed, we can only hope that history and experience in Western Australia is proved wrong and that the opposition can rise above the class based rhetoric and class based politics of division and actually act in the interests of small business and its employees by passing this bill. The Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 [No. 2] meets the needs of Australian small business and the needs and wishes of the unemployed, and they are most certainly the concern of this government. I commend this bill to the House.Sitting suspended from 6.28 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:0024970Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I look forward to this opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 [No. 2]. In 1996, in speaking on the workplace relations legislation of this government, I said:Under the regime of privatisation, downsizing and corporatisation that accompanied this financial deregulation, the benefits of commerce have largely percolated to the top. Now, with all the indicators pointing towards higher levels of unemployment, the government's new legislation appears to me to largely disadvantage the employee, particularly the emasculation of the Industrial Relations Commission and the insertion of an Employment Advocate whose role is not transparently objective. The union movement has been weakened by the accord process. Union membership is very low, new jobs are largely part-time or casual and there is little inclination by part-time workers ... to join unions.I went on to say:Many workers have seen unions become less and less relevant while the union bosses have cemented their positions. But that is no argument for throwing out collective bargaining.History shows that legislation was significantly amended by the need for the government to work with the Australian Democrats. The result was a much fairer piece of legislation.While rejecting the workplace legislation in its original form, I supported the amended laws, with some reservations. But I have had no reservations about the unfair dismissals provisions that are presented again in this bill today. In 1996, I said that the unfair dismissals law was a disincentive to employment, and that was made patently clear to me in the course of the 1996 election campaign and, indeed, in the years since. I had then and I have now no problems with a bill that exempts businesses employing no more than 15 workers from the unfair dismissals provisions of the act. Such workers are always to be protected by the unlawful dismissals provisions, which include dismissal for discriminatory reasons such as sexual preference, age, union membership and family responsibilities.I am convinced, after talking to small business operators in my electorate, that unfair dismissals legislation is a disincentive to the expansion of employment opportunities. I am also aware that this government—and no doubt past ones and those in the future—will use employment and unemployment figures to their political advantage. It is a nonsense today to speak only of unemployment figures as a sign of economic health. One needs to work only an hour a week to not appear on those stats. Many employees in rural and regional areas, and no doubt in city areas, are today cobbling together a portfolio of part-time or casual jobs to make ends meet, any one of which they might not have next Monday.That insecurity is basic to the feeling that things indeed are not well, whatever the level of interest rates. Underemployment—about 30 per cent of the work force are affected, I would estimate—is the number one employment problem in the country. Women, in particular, are vulnerable, and it is another nonsense to suggest they are in a position to bargain effectively for job conditions and hours of work when there may be 50 more applicants lined up outside.Having said that, one may wonder why I support this unfair dismissals bill. I support it because I have faith in small business operators in my electorate to do the right thing. I support it because those small business operators I have spoken with have consistently said that workers compensation premiums and unfair dismissals laws are their greatest headaches. In recent months, they have added to that list the business activity statement. To digress for a second, while I initially welcomed the changes announced by the Treasurer to the BAS the week before last, it has been made clear to me that the changes really change very little. One small business operator said that it would be madness to not do the BAS report on a quarterly basis and remit the tax on the bottom line. Why nominate a guesstimate based on the December quarter that is probably higher when you have the real figure in front of you? Why leave the BAS nightmare until the end of the year, when there could be four times the trouble? Alan Kohler said in the Financial Review last week:Virtually everything about the new system remains intact.He went on to say:I would be very surprised indeed if many small businesses took up the offer of sending in their statements once a year, letting the ATO just send them bills each quarter.The very businesses that do not have the resources to seek professional help are likely to be the ones delaying their BAS completion, and they may be the ones hitting the wall at the end of the year.So BAS, unfair dismissals laws and workers comp remain major headaches for small business in my electorate. Of course workers comp and, to a large degree, unfair dismissals legislation are the province of state governments. However, the Bills Digest says that anything up to 25 per cent of Australian businesses are likely to be affected by the small business exemption contained in this bill.As I said, I have great faith in small business in my electorate to do the right thing. In a rural or regional community, employers generally, but especially those with a small work force, rely on mutual loyalty to get the job done. Their margins are tight, and they need a workplace where the employee and employer are part of a team. They cannot bear the expense of protracted unfair dismissals cases. To that end, I also support the provisions in this bill providing that only employees who have been continuously engaged by the same employer for at least six months may access federal unfair dismissals remedies. If it is argued that that could theoretically lead to an employer ensuring that his hired staff worked for only five months, it would not take long before that employer's reputation for such behaviour became his problem.I realise that things may not be so ideal in a metropolitan workplace, and this legislation does not cover only rural and regional situations. However, I have based my assessment on the feedback I have received from small business and other constituents in my electorate over five years. I will maintain my support for this legislation until I am convinced it is having a serious impact on the rights of employees, as opposed to the rights of small business to offer jobs in good faith. Where circumstances change or the employee becomes recalcitrant and creates a situation that has an absolutely negative impact on that business—and I certainly know of several cases—they should have the right to terminate that employment.Finally, let me repeat something I said in March 1998 when this bill was before the House, again in the climate of a threatened double dissolution:There are many exaggerations in this debate on both the advantages and drawbacks of this particular piece of legislation. The then minister in reintroducing the legislation last November said:What is required is less political opportunism and a more objective and commonsense analysis of the evidence in support of this bill.With that I agree. I am not persuaded by the rhetoric of this debate on either side. My evidence is empirical. This legislation, unlike a lot of the employer-biased policies of this government, is not ideological but practical, and I support it. 20:08:0024972Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—It is a pleasure once again to give my support to these amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 1996, this Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 [No. 2] which the opposition has shamelessly voted against on eight occasions, signalling to the small business community the ALP's contempt for their concerns. I find it difficult to understand how any member of this House can reject outright the necessity of this bill, unless they are beholden to a constituency other than the one they have been elected to.Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, has admitted the truth about Labor when he said on 7 July 2000 on 6PR: `We have never pretended to be a small business party—the Labor Party. We have never pretended that.' Yet, here they are, speaker after speaker getting up and making that very claim—that they are here representing the small business community. The only thing they are hanging their hat on is their so-called roll-back claim, which would simply create greater compliance restrictions on the small business community, particularly those in my electorate of Deakin.The small business sector in Deakin have consistently voiced their concerns about workplace relations, be it their concerns about the Bracks government's WorkCover changes or unfair dismissals provisions. Last year, I held a meeting with the local chamber of commerce where many of these concerns were openly aired along with other issues such as tax compliance and local government planning laws to name a few. Small business owners face many risks in setting up business, and employing staff is one of those risks, in terms of both the financial outlay and protection from making a hiring decision, particularly if that hiring decision goes wrong.Whatever the reason, it is clearly the case that new employees sometimes do not fit the bill and for the opposition to claim otherwise is simply ludicrous. We as a government should be encouraging our small business owners to employ staff with the assurances that they will not be condemned for doing so. For a business with 15 staff or fewer, there is a risk of hiring a person who is difficult to get along with or who perhaps cannot cope with the workload, or for whom, for whatever reason, the employer-employee relationship does not work out. That could result in the total destruction of that company. I personally know of situations where the working relationships were divided so severely due to an incorrect hiring decision that, even after the cause of the problem was removed, the business did not function the same. That is why it is imperative for small businesses with 15 or fewer staff to be excluded from the federal unfair dismissals laws—not so businesses can dismiss staff, as the opposition says, but so that they can employ staff with greater confidence that they will not be dragged through a long and costly court battle and so that they can have the flexibility to adapt to the changing circumstances of their employment needs while remaining a law-abiding employer cognisant of the employees' legal rights. There is recognition that the employee does have legal rights and those legal rights must be protected by this government. I am absolutely amazed by the arguments that those opposite have presented to us today and in previous debates, and I question whether they are listening to the voices of the small business owners in their own electorates. Their excuse, that this exemption will give business owners the ability to hire and fire whenever they please, is simply another one of those fallacies that the Australian Labor Party has peddled around to frighten the labour market. They have made political fear an art form of which they can be justly proud.Is the Labor Party not aware of the indirect and direct costs small businesses face in employment and in the termination of the employment process? No right minded employer can seriously consider the cost of advertising, interviewing, screening, induction, job training and, if necessary, separation and termination payouts as a cost burden they would willingly endure. It is not a cheap procedure; it is time-consuming and it is felt within the company by the staff, the management and all the employees. More importantly, it adversely affects the necessary environment beneficial for productivity. To borrow from another saying, behind every great business there are reliable, productive, trustworthy employees—a truism that all successful businesses acknowledge. This bill is not the tool which will allow unscrupulous, unfair employers to take advantage of employees. The fear of disrupting a harmonious working environment is forcing small business owners to take on more work for themselves or assign a greater workload to the staff they already have. It is not conducive to good work practices for anyone—not to the owners, their staff or those seeking work. This bill is further evidence that this government is committed to creating an environment which will deliver strong and sustained jobs growth and provide a win-win situation for all concerned. Although our sound economic policies and fiscal management are providing such an environment, small business owners are still demanding more. We have also introduced initiatives to support small businesses, but workplace relations reform has been held back by the ALP and the Democrats. We are stifling one of the largest backbones of this country.I would like to turn my attention to the Democrat position because on 19 May 2000, Senator Andrew Murray, in a speech to the Industrial Relations Society of New South Wales, had this to say:... we acknowledge that the unfair dismissal laws are to some degree being abused with speculative claims by employees, sometimes encouraged by lawyers on contingency fees. I have constantly stated the Democrats' view that it is necessary to reform process and cost issues in unfair dismissal cases. I think this is an area of law that does need some further refinement, to ensure that the laws do provide the “fair go all round” they were designed to deliver.I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Andrew Murray and I trust that he has greater sway with his colleagues in the Senate when this bill goes back into the Senate for debate and, hopefully, for passing.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey— Do you think Natasha will go along with that?ZJ6Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESI—The leadership current or future should certainly endorse Senator Murray's comments because that is what the small business community is demanding in this country. We have reduced the level of unemployment to a record low in the past 10 years, and it could be lower should the opposition and/or the Democrats support this bill. The opposition continues to dispute the link between unfair dismissals laws and hiring intentions. Once again, they have their heads in the sand when all around them are studies and figures to support our arguments. The Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, to name just one, has said that if this bill were to pass 50,000 jobs would be created by small business. This is a figure that speaker after speaker from the opposition has stood up in this chamber and disputed. It is a head in the sand mentality, an act of denial by those on the other side.Furthermore, a study by the South Australian Chamber Of Commerce states that over half of the small businesses that were subjected to small business claims have not hired replacement employees and that 77 per cent of small business owners with fewer than 15 employees would hire more staff if exempted from unfair dismissals legislation. These surveys, and others like them, make nonsense of the opposition's rejection of this bill. But if third party surveys are not good enough then the opposition is not even listening to its own constituency. The member for Throsby during his speech quoted from a survey he had conducted in Wollongong. He said that unfair dismissals came in at No. 9 on the list and that above that were concerns about interest rates, payroll tax and the general state of the economy. It might very well have come in at No. 9 but I would say to the member for Throsby that, putting aside issues of the economy, interest rates and payroll tax—which are important issues in their own right—it probably was the No. 1 single workplace relations issue that needed to be addressed. Even though it came in at No. 9, does that mean that one ignores what the business constituency of Wollongong and the electorate of Throsby is saying? I am sure there are similar surveys from around the country that support this. In my electorate of Deakin I have held various meetings with the small business community and the surveys I have had indicate a similar sort of thing. I will be honest—the No. 1 issue in my survey of the small business community was the state WorkCover legislation—something the Bracks government should be ashamed of in terms of its introduction and the increases being foisted upon the small business community, sometimes in excess of a 200 per cent increase in WorkCover charges. The business activity statement came in at No. 2. We have listened to the needs of small businesses and we have made the necessary changes which will relieve them, if they so choose, from making quarterly returns. Coming in at equal No. 3 was interest rates and unfair dismissals. Simply because it is not the No. 1 issue, does that mean we dismiss it? It is the No. 1 workplace relations issue and this bill is about workplace relations so I call on those members on the other side to support this bill rather than be beholden to a constituency other than the one which they were elected to represent.I have heard complaints about the BAS and the red tape for small business, yet the very party that pretends to be the new champions of small business failed to support the very initiatives that will relieve small business owners of the workplace relations burdens targeted by this bill. This bill is a necessary step for small business owners to overcome the fears they have of arbitrary outcomes when growing their business. It will allow employers the ability to place new staff on a six-month qualifying period before having access to the federal unfair dismissals remedy. The opposition should note that the exclusions proposed by this bill are neither sweeping nor absolute. They do not apply to all employees, only new ones, and they do not affect the rights of trainees and apprentices.They also do not overturn unlawful dismissals—dismissals that may be contrary to the legal rights of employees or breaches of discrimination acts. The employees for whom this bill will apply will still be protected by state workplace relations laws and the federal Workplace Relations Act. For those who have been unnecessarily scared by the opposition on the application of this bill, it needs to be stated clearly that this debate is about unfair discrimination and not unlawful discrimination—unfair in the fact that small businesses are still looking extremely cautious when taking on new staff and unfair in that 50,000 unemployed could benefit from the changes proposed today. The qualifying period of six months simply supplements rather than replaces the existing exclusion. It preserves a separate role for probation periods determined in advance of an employee's employment—that is, employees can still be placed on a shorter probation period of up to six months. It is quite clear to me that the ALP is overreacting to this bill. The debate we are having today is nothing more than the old industrial relations debate—Labor versus Liberal rather than what prospective small business employers want. Small businesses are trying to recover from the impact of the Brereton unfair dismissals laws because the previous government did not realise how many exclusions, like this one, were needed. The relief we have given small business owners over the five years so far is proof that this government is in fact responsive to the needs of the small business community. The evidence is obvious in the record low, long-term unemployment rate.We have seen this rate fall the most in Victoria—down by 35.8 per cent during the past 12 months. This state currently has about 60 per cent of its workers under federal workplace relations laws. But the federal ALP, like its state counterpart the Bracks government, refuses to listen. In a recent survey by Pitcher Partners, a record 65 per cent of small business people had negative expectations of the Victorian ALP's policy direction. This is in stark contrast to the 80 per cent of Victorian small business owners who agree with the policy directions of the federal government. If the member for Brisbane or the member for Hunter took the time to talk to the small business community of Victoria they would be aware of calls for workplace relations changes as proposed by this government. These calls were heard by the Minister for Small Business two weeks ago. Last week he was moved to say that plenty of people wanted to talk industrial relations and in particular unfair dismissals laws and the high WorkCover payments the Bracks government is forcing Victorian small businesses to pay. This is totally supported by the business survey that I conducted late last year in Deakin, and I am sure by the other surveys which have been conducted in neighbouring electorates. I will certainly be interested to hear what the member for Chisholm has to say, and I wonder whether unfair dismissals laws come in as the No. 1 workplace relations change which the business community is asking her to undertake. The deceptive comments I have heard in this debate from Labor are indicative of its attempt to cynically manipulate small business sentiment for its own political ends. This is nowhere more evident than with the Opposition Leader's refusal to condemn the union movement's proposed introduction of a $500 service fee for non-union members. The initiatives proposed in this bill are not something new or secret from the Australian public. These initiatives were as a matter of fact outlined during the October 1998 coalition election campaign through our workplace relations policy More Jobs, Better Pay. To the small business owners in Deakin, it is regarded as a matter of priority that we as a government implement our specific electoral decree and meet our promises. The opposition has challenged the veracity of our information and the statistics that my colleagues and I have presented during this debate, but they cannot deny the views of the public. Further to this is the support that many employer organisations, especially those dealing with small businesses, have stated in regard to this bill. On 14 April 1998, the national president of the Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women wrote to the leaders of the opposition and the Democrats emphasising the need to restore small business confidence in relation to unfair dismissals issues. The fact that we are debating this bill again is testimony to the fact that the opposition and the Democrats ignored that call. I know that the majority of small business owners in my electorate of Deakin would agree with the statements by the federation and by other organisations that are supporting and representing the small business community. This is the most important reason why this bill should be brought into law as soon as possible—to provide jobs growth. What we have here is another initiative by this government that adds to the proven and successful industrial relations reforms already in place. The bill deserves to be passed and not voted down for the ninth time by an opposition contemptuous of the needs of Deakin's small businesses. I urge all members of this House to support these amendments.20:24:0024975Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise tonight to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 [No. 2]. As many speakers have said before me, this bill seeks to amend the Workplace Relations Act to exempt from federal unfair dismissals laws small businesses with 15 or fewer employees. It is also designed to restrict access to remedies under federal unfair dismissals laws to employees with at least six months or more service with the same employer. This bill is merely a rehash of the former Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business's bill introduced over two years ago, with all the same prejudices and lack of understanding of the true needs of small business we have come to expect from this government. This bill is championed by those opposite as the saviour of small business and as the panacea of jobs growth. It is nothing more than an attack on workers' rights to be treated fairly. It is a carte blanche message to small business that at any whim or fancy a staff member can be terminated for any reason without any recourse to some form of justice. What sort of law-makers are we when we come to this place to deliberately exclude a person from the rights of protection, just because they are employed with fewer than 14 colleagues? It is nonsensical and it is unfair. The first issue I would like to go to is the government's flawed rationale that employment in small business will somehow be increased if this legislation passes through the parliament. Those opposite have quoted in just about every speech they have given on this bill the staggering figure of 50,000 new jobs which will be created in small business because of the passage of this bill. We on this side have pointed out there is no basis for this figure, but somehow it has gained currency. This bill supposedly will create a dismissal led recovery that will overcome the latest findings of the ACCI's National Survey of Business Expectations that I would like to quote from. It reads: The results of ACCI's national survey of business expectations for the March quarter 2001 show a continuing weakness in business conditions. Moreover, this weakness is now being translated into a decline in business confidence in the performance of the Australian economy. Major indicators of general business conditions, such as employment, profitability and selling prices, have deteriorated sharply. More positively, however, investment in plant and equipment and in buildings showed some improvement during the quarter while labour cost pressures continued to ease, posing no inflationary threat. In regard to the expectations data, the outlook for business activity remains pessimistic, with the data negative across the majority of activity measures. Of major concern is the expected decline in investment intentions and the continued weakness in profitability, employment and export growth.Against this background of decline in business confidence, somehow this bill is going to be a panacea for jobs growth. I think not, and so does everybody on my side of the House. The small businesses in my electorate want to be rid of tiresome paper work, the extraordinary burden of GST compliance and the BAS. That would greatly help them. Recently an accountant who operates in Chisholm put it most aptly: the government has created a nation of bookkeepers. Ask any small business operator how they are coping with the government's so-called simplified system and they will tell you—they have had to hire a bookkeeper. It was not to help them be more profitable or take on more staff; it was because they had to be GST compliant—an additional cost on top of the extraordinary accounting fees they now incur. There are some fantastic business associations in my electorate, which provide great networking opportunities to the many small business people of Chisholm. At the Whitehorse business group Christmas party, members were asked to rate the highs and lows of the year 2000. Funnily, no-one mentioned the unfair dismissals law as a low, but every table rated the introduction of the GST and BAS statements as the low of 2000; it was unanimous across the board. I do not think there was an individual in the room who did not rate GST compliance and BAS as a low for the year 2000. If those opposite are genuine about helping small businesses create jobs and become profitable, they should do something genuine about the BAS and the other imposts of small business compliance. Where does this figure of 15 people come from anyway? If you are one of 15 or fewer, you are somehow less worthy of protection. Why? Nowhere is this explained. The other issue which I have come across as an impost to small business taking on new employees in my electorate is the lack of help from Job Network providers. Many small businesses have approached me about the failure of the Job Network to help them fill vacancies. Before, they could go into the CES and post a job on the board and they could fill that vacancy. Now they must pay at least $250 to be listed with a Job Network provider or they have to take out an ad in a local paper or in the major press. Many small businesses simply cannot afford this, or the time to screen people coming through ads. I have also had complaints about the touch screen technology in Centrelink offices being unable to accurately list vacancies or, more importantly, unemployed people actually being unable to find the job that is there for the taking. These are more imposts upon small businesses getting employees than somehow unfair dismissal laws are. There is a very enterprising individual in my electorate of Chisholm who runs a fish tank cleaning business. He sends someone to your home to professionally clean your tank and ensure your fish are properly looked after. If you have a very large fish tank full of tropical fish, this is very important. This operator cannot get staff. Why? Because no-one can find fish tank cleaning jobs on the touch screen technology in Centrelink. His business turnover does not allow him to pay $250 to list his job with a network provider and to advertise in the local press would take a week out of his ability to go out and run his business. He cannot find staff any more; he actually liked the old CES days that found him numerous great staff—but not any more. Unfair dismissal laws are not an impediment to his taking on staff. No, the Job Network provider is a greater impediment to his being able to hire people. How many people opposite have actually been involved in hiring and firing staff? How many have actually been to unfair dismissal proceedings? Not too many, I dare say. Well I have, both as the employer and as the union representative. A job is like a licence: you must meet certain requirements to get it and you must comply with certain laws to keep it. Employers need to set the rules and inform their employees of them. It is no good sacking someone one day because they have always been late when you have never mentioned to them the requirements of their start and finish times. My role as the manager of an IR section in a large government enterprise often involved explaining to managers that they actually had to tell their staff what the rules and regulations were and that they could not expect them to know the rules by osmosis. This bill does not help business practices; it encourages bad business practices in hiring. It will engender bad business behaviour, which will in turn affect profits. If you do not have good business practices in hiring staff and good practices in staff feedback, you cannot hope to have a good business. This bill does nothing to ensure we have good businesses out there.The second part of the legislation I would like to examine is the delaying of workers' rights to access unfair dismissal laws. Whilst this proposed exclusion does not affect currently employed employees, it will affect future generations of employees. If this legislation is passed, it will affect all the newcomers to the job market such as young people, women returning from family related absences and people who have been unemployed for a period of time and have finally landed another job—just the sort of vulnerable workers a good government would want to protect in their formative few months with an employer, I would have thought. But, instead, this legislation if passed will rob all employees of the right to pursue their employer in the event of their unfair dismissal in the first six months of their employment. Why set an arbitrary six-month qualifying period? Is the government honestly saying that if a worker is the subject of dismissal that is harsh, unjust or unreasonable they are not worthy of pursuing the matter just because they have not worked for their employer for six months, just as they are not worthy of pursuing the matter because they happen to be one of 15 or fewer people? What sort of crazy logic is this? Sadly, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that this is another brazen attempt to exclude as many employees as possible from pursuing their rights. As I mentioned before, this proposed change is not retrospective. But it will affect not only new entrants into the labour market but also the thousands of workers who change their jobs regularly through either choice or necessity. ABS labour mobility statistics show that about 1.5 million Australians change jobs every 12 months and just over one million will change employer. As reported in the Bills Digest, an earlier survey recorded that over 185,000 employees left their jobs due to unsatisfactory working conditions. The irony for these people is that, having left these jobs because they were unsatisfactory, they will now be unable to pursue an unfair dismissal claim against their new employer. Labor has moved an amendment to the second reading of this bill, which requires the bill to be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for increased job security, protection from unfair dismissal for all workers and ready access for all workers to an affordable and fair umpire. As I move around my electorate of Chisholm, I am constantly told that job security is a vital issue for all people—not only for those participating in the work force but also for people who have been made redundant and for parents with a genuine concern that their own children will not be able to find and keep a job in the future.Recently, yet another Commonwealth Bank branch closed in my electorate, and the loss of services brings with it the loss of jobs. The manager of the bank was taking a redundancy. Whilst he was happy with this choice, I know of countless bank managers who were not so happy with the prospect of being in a job for life one day and on the scrap heap at 45 the next. I can tell you countless stories of the many individuals I represented when I was at the Financial Sector Union who were not very impressed with being made redundant. Their greatest catchcry was about job security—not about being able to pursue unfair dismissal laws—knowing that they had a job for the future; and, if they were not going to have a job for the future, knowing that there was some help in retraining them for another job. Without a doubt, the biggest issue I have come across is job security. This bill just blows that all away—for what? Increased casualisation and downsizing have wreaked havoc in the labour market. We have seen dozens of Australian companies, regarded as local icons, snapped up by international investors, and local jobs lost. The push to keep up with global market forces has seen the death of many industries such as manufacturing, yet this government has nurtured very few replacement industries. This government has been in power for almost five years, yet it has stood idly by and watched Australian jobs go offshore and workers made redundant or only offered contracts or other precarious forms of employment. Where are the apprenticeship programs we used to be able to offer our children? Where are the retraining programs to assist middle-aged men find a new niche job in the new economy? Where are the transitional arrangements for rural areas virtually turned into ghost towns by the closing of local industries? Where is the government's industry policy? The government has not provided any leadership in either prompting new niche industries or helping ordinary people adjust to the globalised economy that has seen the death of many industries and decreasing feel of job security. Instead, this government's industrial relations laws are underpinned by the philosophies of the H.R. Nicholls Society. There is no innovation, no nation building, no genuine understanding of the very fear most employed people have for the security of their jobs. This bill is yet another attempt by the government to introduce lopsided laws that further undermine the rights of all Australian workers. Accordingly, this bill deserves to be defeated yet again as it is just another example of a government that is intent on producing a system that swings the pendulum far too far in favour of employers to the detriment of all Australian workers. Until the government understands that the key to employment growth is in developing new industries and cutting small business red tape—not denying rights to unfair dismissal laws—it will continue to be further out of step with the concerns and aspirations of ordinary Australians.20:37:0024978Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—The Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 [No. 2] will amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to necessitate a six-month qualifying period of employment before new employees, other than apprentices and trainees, can access an unfair dismissal remedy under the act and it will exclude new employees of small businesses other than apprentices and trainees from the federal unfair dismissal regime. I ask you: what could possibly be a problem with this bill that was introduced into the House of Representatives on 12 November 1998, passed by the House of Representatives on 2 December 1998 and rejected by the Senate on 14 August 2000? The proposed small business exemption has been the subject of an almost unprecedented degree of political obstructionism. In less than four years, it has been voted down in one form or another on eight occasions by the Labor Party and on five occasions by the Australian Democrats. In 1999, a majority report of a Senate committee recommended that the bill be passed without amendment. Despite this, Labor and the Democrats still claim that there is no evidence linking the impact of unfair dismissal laws and the hiring intentions of small business employers. The member for Chisholm has spoken about employment creation. The fact is that there is a perception out in the small business world that unfair dismissals will impact on small businesses greatly. As we all know, perception is reality in a political world. The Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill will give small business people the confidence to employ Australians, without the concern of the business being jeopardised by an unfair dismissal claim. This is an important piece of legislation aimed at supporting small businesses with the objective of encouraging new employment.As a member of a small business family, I am here to champion the cause for these amazing people who employ the largest number of people in the nation and who have hearts bigger than Phar Lap. It is no secret that there are job opportunities that are going begging at the moment because there is a fear of the unknown. There is a fear of the perception of unfair dismissal. I repeat: the perception is that unfair dismissal will become a reality for most small businesses. Imagine being a small business owner who is working the longest of hours and who can see his or her way clear to take some of the burden off and give someone a job opportunity. At the same time there is no certainty that the business will continue to operate profitably, but there is also no reason that it will not. Do they take the risk of employing an extra person, knowing that they will be unable to lay that person off should they not be suitable or if in fact the business cannot carry the load? You most certainly are not going to chance the possibility of being hauled through the unfair dismissal tribunal, so you do not offer the job. It is more than likely that the job would have been secure, but we will never know. This is why small business owners are battered and bruised. They already had enough to deal with without putting them in the position of being at the mercy of someone with a penchant for trouble—and, believe me, there are those out there who cause just that. In some of the industries in my electorate, you see troublemakers go from one place to another, wreaking havoc and mayhem, only to inflict the same pain on the next unsuspecting employer doing the right thing. This government has presented an opportunity for small businesses to save time and money by providing access to recruitment professionals, such as Job Network. The member for Chisholm was very critical of Job Network. I have used Job Network quite a few times and have found it to be absolutely supportive. I did not find that there was a problem with people not being able to reach the touch screen or there not being positions on the touch screen. There are quite a few people around who are able to walk people through the process of finding employment. Job Network will find job seekers who have the skills required to fulfil the duties of the employer, thus creating the opportunity for the business to grow. I am sorry that the member for Chisholm has had a very bad experience with Job Network. Perhaps she should take that up as a member of this parliament. These small businesses now need us to go a step further in order for them to fully utilise this service. They need the confidence of having had this hideous Labor introduced legislation abolished.Small businesses are very important to my electorate of Riverina. Their money stays predominantly locally and multiplies to bring added benefits to the district. In expanding their businesses, they utilise local providers. They traditionally buy local because they are local. Their profits do not disappear into national profits or, indeed, into overseas bank accounts. Their money stays to support the community that they service. Small business is about the only area where one can now expect to find full-time employment. With the majority of multinationals choosing to offer only casual employment, with no thought of security, the poor worker has no obvious choice to look for a future. How do you take out a loan when you are on casual employment? I am sure that no bank is willing to have discussions about loans with a person who provides only a casual employment wage relief. Being a small or medium sized business in the city or the country has never been an easy task. It takes enormous courage to continue to risk one's family, one's home and all of one's possessions in order to provide a living and employment, not only for family members but for the community at large. Small business operators are precariously positioned every day that they open their doors to the ever demanding and sometimes very hard to please consumer, in the hope of making a sale that will pay the next week's overheads, in order to keep the doors open for the convenience of these customers. To continue employing their staff and to make a profit is a must, but they must be able to do it without any fear of being unfairly and unjustly penalised. This profit means that they do not have to be reliant on the government and that they can continue to fulfil the role of being Australia's largest employment provider. Small business owners in the main are committed to their employees. In his speech to the House, the member for Hunter summed it up perfectly when he spoke of small business owners. He said:They are not keen—that is small business—to make excessive profits at the expense of their employees. Generally speaking, these are fair people. They are out to make a quid, sure, but not excessive profits. Generally speaking, they have excellent relationships with their employees. In small business, the employer-employee relationship is very important. Trust is important, faith in one another is important and teamwork is important.The member for Hunter also spoke of unscrupulous employers. What of unscrupulous employees? Imagine the true story of having a staff member who every day on a workshop floor refuses to put in anywhere near a half a day's work for a full day's pay. The other workmates complain that they are carrying the load of this person. The productivity drops considerably and morale is low on the floor of a normally happy and responsive workplace, as the workmates elect to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with this employee and his attitude. The owner tries to talk to the employee and is told: `You can't force me to work and you can't sack me, because I will take you for unfair dismissal. That's what I want—I want to get out of here but you are going to pay me to go.'The owner elects to take the risk and proceeds with the required warnings. He then terminates the employment with just cause, only to be tied up in months of action from a union. This is a horrifying experience for anyone. Nobody is saying that all unions have a dishonourable effect on a workplace—there are very many good unions. However, at times, they do exploit the fact that, in some places, the employee can be at a greater advantage than an employer.This is the position that the opposition put all small business people in when they introduced this disgraceful situation when they were in government. Small businesses do not possess the same resources to dedicate to recruitment and termination procedures as their larger counterparts. The attendance of the employer or other staff as witnesses at a hearing can negatively impact on daily trade for a small business.The current unfair dismissal laws can cause many difficulties for small businesses who experience a claim, aside from the cost of settlement. These include the time and location of hearings along with the associated costs, stress and disruption to working relationships—not to mention the costs associated with defence. This is exactly the reason we should not have unfair dismissal laws that will break down this trust between the employer and the employee that the member for Hunter quite rightly pointed out. The member for Hunter had it right, yet we have these constant objections from the opposition. As previously quoted by the member for Blair on 1 December 1998, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's submission to the Senate Economics References Committee on the question of legal costs reads:In the case of an unfair dismissal claim that went to conciliation, was not settled or withdrawn and went to a one day arbitration, ACCI's informed estimate is that this might involve about 10-15 hours of a solicitor's time. At a cost of about $180 an hour (a moderate solicitor's fee) this would involve a cost of $1,800-$2,700. If the matter was settled at the door of the Court, just before arbitration started, as they often are, the estimated hours would be 8-10 hours, a cost of $1,440-$1,800.To be settled out of court, an additional cost to the employer of six months wages or possibly reinstatement would ensue, to say nothing of the mental and emotional turmoil the employer and their family have endured. This you cannot put a price on.Small business employers have lost control of their businesses and their lives and we must give it back to them. On reading through the second reading stage speeches on this bill, I was again staggered by the very little that the opposition knows about small business. During the discussion, trade union representations are mentioned frequently. Again, I admit, there are some decent trade unions, but there are also some indecent ones.Many a work site has been ground to a stop because of the bully boy attitude of a union official whose only purpose is to reaffirm his need to continue in a fat cat position at the expense of the worker. Many a site using contractors who are small business men and women who employ honest, hard working men and women has been dragged to their knees because of a egocentric union delegate enforcing his power over the supposedly subservient worker. I ask you: is that what having union protection is all about?While reading the speeches from the Senate and in this House on this bill, I could not help but note that there was a distinct lack of recognition that small businesses were crying out for these small changes. They are not dramatic changes; they are small changes. There was absolutely no attempt to give to these people what they are entitled to receive. All they are told is that there is a lack of evidence surrounding the concerns of the small business sector. Well, believe you me, can I repeat again—perception is reality. The perception for small businesses is they have an unfair dismissal looming at any given time. This bill is an important step in addressing the problem of unemployment by offering much needed support to small businesses and I commend it to the House.20:50:0024981Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in the parliament to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 [No. 2]. I intend, in particular, to speak on the government's intentions— stated and otherwise—that underpin this particular piece of legislation, as well as on Labor's several amendments to the legislation. The bill and the second reading speech of the then Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business are important for a number of reasons. They reflect the government's political strategy. They also reflect the government's ideology on industrial relations; some would say its ideological obsession—an ideological obsession which has all the hallmarks still of the H. R. Nicholls Society of some decades ago, which has as its central tenet that a good trade union is a very dead trade union and a good employee is a docile employee. They reflect also, in the case of the government, the triumph of ideology over logic in terms of the practical claims which have been made in connection with this legislation for the small businesses which it is purported to serve. Finally, it presents the new Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business with an interesting career challenge. Is he going to replicate, through this piece of legislative activity and others, the sort of class warfare that was so beloved of his predecessor in the portfolio? Or will we see from this minister a fresh approach more befitting of his own intellectual pedigree with the NCC than with the antediluvian union bashing that characterised the habits of his colleagues who have come out of a different ideological stable? First, let us talk about the political strategy that is alive in this piece of legislation. The funniest part of this legislation is why it is currently before the House. What is the political strategy that has underpinned it? It is a classic study of what seemed to be such a good idea at the time—that is, getting for the government the double dissolution trigger. That is the reason we have it here. We all know that the government will lose this bill in the Senate as they lost it in the Senate last time. They know that, we know that, the Democrats know that and the entire industrial relations community of the nation knows that. So why are we wasting the time of the parliament? The answer is—at least the original rationale was—to give the Prime Minister the early election trigger. I suppose it is now just a bit too embarrassing to pull the legislation out of the chamber, given that it was introduced into the chamber before Christmas when all this seemed to be such a smashing good idea. But back before Christmas we had the script. We had Richard Court holding on in Western Australia; we had a campaign to smear Beattie out of office in Queensland; and, of course, we had the unleashing of Mark Textor's pathetically predictable key lines and themes about the Beazley opposition. Then whacko! Bob's your uncle. Bring on the double dissolution. Then John Howard can continue with the renovations and restorations at Kirribilli.That was the master plan as it was unleashed from the Prime Minister's Führer bunker just before Christmas. I think, however, it is fair to say that the Führer bunker is now busily trying to cobble together plan B because plan A has hit hard against the wall—in fact, it is going nowhere. Richard Court is no longer in Western Australia; Peter Beattie is still very much in Queensland; but I have to say that we still hear, day after day, Mark Textor's undiluted and unremarkably unpoetic key lines and themes pouring forth from imaginative ministers opposite in what passes for question time in this place.So here we have a strategy underpinning this legislation, conceived in absolute political cynicism, now consigned to the political scrap heap. But this tawdry bill still gives us in this parliament an opportunity to at least debate the ideological predilections which characterise this government's approach to industrial relations and the particular policy rationale, which I think they have curiously sought to advance, that would be served by this particular piece of the government's overall IR agenda.Let us look at the ideology. If you look at the minister's second reading speech, a core stated rationale is:... to provide a fairer balance between the rights of employers and the rights of workers.I suppose the core proposition, therefore, must be that the current balance between employees and employers is inadequate—that is, that balance which has existed since the mid-1980s. I presume the logic advanced by the government must be something along these lines: firstly, labour—especially organised labour—still has too much power; secondly, this has a deleterious impact on the productivity of firms; thirdly, as a consequence, this stunts growth and employment; and, as an overall consequence of the above, this retards the overall expansion of the economy. There is a problem with this analysis because, if it were true that the sort of balance between the rights of employers and employees that we saw through the eighties and through to the mid-nineties was radically wrong, why is it that through that entire period we saw such huge advances in labour market productivity in this country—right at the top echelon of the OECD? Why did that occur during that period if the fundamental underpinnings of the balance of power between employers and employees, between labour and capital, were somehow wrong? It flies in the face of the empirical evidence. Of course, if we were to look at this proposition rationally—and I do not think the government is doing that; it is looking at the proposition ideologically—we would see that labour market productivity is but one small subcomponent of the total factor productivity equation. If you are seeking to lift the efficiency of an economy, you are looking at the efficiency of all factors of production—not just one and not just a component of one. If a government were serious about continuing to advance the international competitiveness of the Australian economy, it would look at and address the entire equation. It would look at the more efficient use of financial capital; it would look at the better use of technology; it would look at the more cost-effective use of material inputs; it would look at a better R&D performance by firms; and it would look at a revolution in Australian enterprise. I must say that it is a revolution much needed because of what in Australia today must be the most extraordinarily risk averse corporate and entrepreneurial culture in any OECD country. In addition to that, it must look at the continued importance of improving labour productivity through such investments as better training. These collectively represent the total ingredients of the productivity package. They represent the total ingredients of how we advance the competitiveness internationally of the Australian economy. But, instead, what we have in this legislation, and it is reflective of the government's overall ideological obsession, is a single-minded obsession with one component—in fact, one subcomponent—of the total factor productivity equation, and that is how maximally to squeeze labour dry. What this demonstrates is that, when we come to looking at the complex question of how to advance international competitiveness in the future—an agenda which requires a sophisticated policy response—what we have on the part of the coalition government is, I think, a response more befitting a complete economic dinosaur. The ACTU demonstrates itself to be an infinitely more rational partner in advancing the total competitiveness equation in this country in contrast to what is demonstrated, I think, to be the coalition's myopic obsession with the evils of organised labour, as reflected in this piece of legislation before the House.I believe it is time for those economic Neanderthals opposite to wake up, to move on and to recognise that the days of the H.R. Nicholls Society are well past. The H.R. Nicholls Society might have been a marvellous place for the Treasurer of the Commonwealth, Mr Costello, to have made his political reputation a decade and a half ago. The H.R. Nicholls Society today represents no body of knowledge, no body of policy advice and no body of credible national strategy capable of advancing this country's competitiveness agenda in the 21st century.Let us look at the policy rationale which has been advanced by the government in support of the legislation before the House. This, I believe, is where the logic gets really quite spooky. The stated rationale in the minister's second reading speech is that this legislation, once it mystically whips its way through both chambers of this parliament, will create some 50,000 new small business jobs. There we have the ultimate triumph of faith over reason. No modelling is advanced to support this mystical number of 50,000. I would be most interested to know whether the department providing advice to the minister in support of this legislation has in its possession some sort of modelling, some sort of mathematical basis, to justify how 50,000 jobs would emerge from the passage of this legislation. No, the only proof which is offered to the people of Australia to support this tawdry piece of legislation is some press statement from the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia. I do not think in the 21st century that that passes for high levels of rocket science research. It might make for a cute polemical point in the parliament, but it does not actually represent a cogent, logical case.Irony seems to be lost on a government that, on the one hand, castigates organised labour and the ALP for its opposition to a measure with an unsubstantiated 50,000 job claim attached to it yet, on the other hand, presides over a fundamental erosion of employment in this economy as we speak—that is, a real erosion, not a projected one; a quantifiable erosion, not simply a conjectured one. Let us look at the most recent labour force statistics, for the six months from July 2000 to January 2001—an interesting period, given that that is the period which has been captured by the statistical data in terms of the downstream effect of a range of policy changes in the economy, not least of which has been the tax revolution unleashed by those opposite, though surprisingly at present there seem to be very few of those opposite who are now willing to claim authorship of that particular tax revolution. What has happened with labour force data in the six months since the great Peter Costello GST revolution hit? Let us look at employment. Employment has declined by 209,000—that is, there are 209,000 fewer jobs than there were at the beginning of the financial year. In seasonally adjusted terms, there has been a 35,000 job decline in the same period. In trend terms, the number of full-time jobs has declined by 40,000. What is happening on the unemployment front? Unemployment has increased by 113,000 in original terms. Unemployment has increased by 39,000 in seasonally adjusted terms. The number of unemployed people looking for full-time employment has increased by 22,000 in trend terms. Again quoting from the statistics provided to me by the Parliamentary Library, in the period since December 2000 employment—that is, jobs—has declined by 279,000 in original terms; employment has declined by 4,000 in seasonally adjusted terms; full-time employment in trend terms has declined by 13,000; unemployment has increased by 52,000 in original terms; unemployment has increased by 6,000 in seasonally adjusted terms; and unemployment for those looking for full-time work has increased by 6,000 in trend terms. None of us on this side of the parliament wants to be picky, but I think it is fair to argue, both in this place and to the nation through the broadcast of the parliament which is occurring this evening, that this is not exactly a flash policy outcome for the government. We are seeing a radical softening in the Australian labour market, right here and now. Yet what we have, I think extraordinarily, is a government which has the audacity to preach to us in the opposition about effective management of the economy and about effective management of the labour market in particular. We have a government which stands in this place and argues, `Give us approval in order to put through the parliament this piece of legislation in relation to small business and unfair dismissals and, whacko, you will get an extra 50,000 jobs,' while being singularly unaware, it seems, of the wreckage which now lies around it in terms of the radical deterioration in this nation's labour market in the period since its tax revolution was introduced.Of course this is not the only data. There has been a string of bad data. Today, we had the ANZ job advertisements data showing a 10 per cent decline in February 2001 alone. That is 15,000 fewer job advertisements per month. As Saul Eslake, the Chief Economist of the ANZ Bank, said on television this evening, it has eerie parallels of the recessions of the early eighties and the early nineties. When asked specifically whether the GST was a factor in the softening of this performance, Saul Eslake's response was, yes, the GST had been a factor in this overall downturn.We also see a fundamental faltering of the building sector—a 3.7 per cent fall in January housing starts. The HIA said today that activity now within that sector is something like 50 per cent down on where activity was last year. This softening in housing starts and the housing industry in general is particularly savage in my home state of Queensland. Has the GST been a factor in this erosion, in this fundamental undermining, of the housing industry sector in this country? Of course it has. You bet it has. It has been a sledgehammer taken to what has otherwise been a vibrant sector in its overall contribution to the economy and one which has yet to show any signs of any sustainable recovery. Today in the parliament we had, I thought, the inglorious spectacle of the Treasurer picking through the ruins of the latest economic data to find some sort of glimmer of hope. We have seen the labour market data—it is a disaster. We got the housing sector data today—that is a disaster. We have the national accounts looming on Wednesday—too horrible to contemplate. But there was a glimmer of hope: the 0.9 per cent increase in retail sales is somehow championed by the Treasurer as being undiluted good news in the midst of this otherwise morass of poor economic data. The Treasurer on this score reminds me of someone who, shipwrecked on a desert island, sees some piece of a deflated, half strangled life raft floating by called `a slight increase in the retail sales for the last month' and grabs onto that as if it is somehow going to be a saving point in an overall situation which shows the economy in a radically slowing mode. Yet this is the government which has the gall to stand opposite and lecture the opposition about how best to manage the economy and about how best to manage the employment of this economy in particular.The Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 [No. 2] and the debate surrounding it present the new Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business with an interesting set of challenges. The minister is, of course, in the early days of his portfolio. I note from what has been published in the Australian press that the minister is anxious to say that he is a novice in the field and that he has a lot to learn. This may be genuine modesty or it may be the politically skilful or politically expedient crafting of some form of expectation management—time will tell. But the new minister faces a very interesting challenge. Will this minister simply replicate Costelloism, Reithism and Kempism—that is, the industrial relations agenda of the last two decades—or will he recognise that life is now a bit more complex than that false morality play which the H.R. Nicholls Society sought to construct sometime during the 1980s? It is a bit more complex than simply engaging in a program of the mindless demonisation of the likes of Sharan Burrow and Greg Combet of the ACTU.I notice, for example, the minister's statements in the national press. The Australian of Friday, 2 February quotes him talking about what he was told upon taking up the portfolio. The article says:The Prime Minister made this point to me in jest when he asked me to take on the new role: `You want to forget much of what you were taught by the late, great Bob Santamaria,'” Mr Abbott said.Mr Santamaria, an early mentor to Mr Abbott, was a Catholic right-winger who believed in the union movement and used it to fight communism under the banner `Unionism Yes. Communism No'.It is most interesting that Mr Abbott, the new minister for workplace relations, should find it necessary to quote in an early interview about his new portfolio that he had been given some ideological riding instructions by the Prime Minister not to stray too closely into the realms of embracing the virtues of trade unionism, as advocated by Mr Abbott's earlier mentor, B.A. Santamaria. As for the minister, he also said in the Australian of 13 February that capitalism is now much more civilised than in the days when large power discrepancies existed between workers and employers. I do not share the minister's enthusiasm on that account. I believe, as many do on this side of the chamber, that human nature is not fundamentally changed, that you do see a disparity of power between employers and employees and that, as a consequence of that, there is an obligation on the parliament and on organised labour to ensure maximum protection for the weak in the economy and the weak in society so that they are not simply prevailed upon by those who wish to exploit them. Exploitation by some will continue. (Time expired)21:10:0024985McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—We have just heard an interesting academic exposition from the member for Griffith in the debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 [No. 2]. I think it typifies the position of the Labor Party: somebody who really does not understand the argument, somebody who has not been out there talking to small business. Member for Griffith, I hope you are not going to leave because you are not prepared to listen to some of the alternative arguments. You have not been out there listening to small business. 83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—I've got an appointment. VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—You are about to leave; that is typical. It is typical of the Labor Party and the member for Griffith. He has not been out there listening to small business, he gets up here and makes an academic speech about unfair dismissals, he talks about double dissolutions, he talks about conspiracy theories, and he does not really address the issue. He then goes on to denigrate the H.R. Nicholls Society. I am happy to be a member of the H.R. Nicholls Society. I am prepared to put it on the public record because they are a genuine group which debate the issues of industrial relations. They have had some of your people, members of the opposition, putting their points of view on industrial relations. They are prepared to debate the issue on the public record, and yet the member for Griffith comes into this place and attacks that group, saying that they are sinister and that they have some association with the Treasurer, and making other such arguments. Some of the arguments that have been put forward by the H.R. Nicholls Society advocated some changes in the industrial relations system, and the former Hawke-Keating government adopted some of those suggestions, such as the suggestion that labour industrial relations should be more flexible. Another suggestion was that changes be undertaken on the waterfront, which those opposite tried to do on many occasions but were unable to achieve. The member opposite gave us an academic speech about double dissolutions but did not really address the problem before the parliament. I am delighted that the member for Griffith had the courtesy to stay in the parliament to hear some of the arguments which he did not really address.If you move around electorates throughout Australia, you find that small business men are concerned about the unfair dismissal procedures. If you listen carefully to what they tell you, you will hear them say, `Look, it'll cost you about $7,000 if you are approached with an unfair dismissal case.' That is about the ruling rate, so if one of your new employees or one of your older employees takes you on for unfair dismissal, by the time you pay out the employee, by the time you go through the legal procedures, you find that it is within the range of $5,000 to $7,000. That is the fear that employers have when they put new employees on. They are concerned about what might be the outcome if the new employee and their employer part ways. The ALP in Victoria under Premier Kirner and the former Hawke-Keating governments were prepared to make special exemptions for apprenticeships and trainees because they said that for six months you really are not subject to unfair dismissal. I have never heard a refutation of that argument from those opposite, because they understood the problem.There is an interesting definition of how many personnel are involved in small business. It ranges from 800,000 to one million small businesses in Australia, depending upon your definition. For the purposes of the argument, we are saying that small businesses are those businesses that employ 15 or fewer staff. Those businesses are very concerned about the unfair dismissal procedures. The government is proposing that there be a six-month period during which, if employers and employees come to a disagreement, they can part ways without any undue upset and without the $7,000 price tag.We have a situation where the member for Griffith and others opposite have managed to vote this down. It has been voted down on eight occasions by the opposition and five times by the Democrats, based on some ideological commitment to their concern about unfair dismissals, the ILO and other matters. The government, in the legislation we have had before in this House and in the Senate, is proposing that, if an employee has not completed six months of continuous service, there should be no unfair dismissal provisions; if the employer has no more than 15 employees—and that is 800,000 small businesses—this proposition will not affect the existing employees. And, as I said, it will not affect the rights of apprentices and trainees. It is important to fully understand that the Workplace Relations Act unfair dismissal provisions will apply to Commonwealth public sector workers, employees in the federal territories or Victoria, persons under the federal award employed by a constitutional corporation and certain workers in overseas trade and commerce. If we look at some of the figures, we find that there are three million people working in small business, half of whom are not proprietors. They constitute a very big proportion of Australia's work force and Australia's productivity. Half of the unfair dismissal claims are in the federal court system, and it is estimated that the proposed exemption affects 25 per cent of small businesses. The important thing that the member for Griffith and others did not fully understand is that the legislation does not affect people already employed. It affects only new employees or prospective employees. The industrial relations annual report for 1995-96 confirms the hearsay argument out in the field that the median amount awarded in compensation is $6,000. The average cost of defending a claim is $5,000. We have it on the record in the court reports that small employers are facing the possibility of $6,000 or $7,000 no matter what the merit of the argument is. The court report indicated that 74 per cent of the cases were settled by agreement. Some of the small employers I have spoken to said that it was easier to agree to the claim, pay up and settle the case. Ninety per cent of cases were over in 12 months. Again, employers got tired of the argument, they were sick of the money involved and they settled. Eight-four per cent of the trials were over in two days.Imagine the problem that small businesses have when they have to go to court. They do not understand the procedures. They have employed someone in recent times, in good faith on many occasions. They find they have come to an unsatisfactory relationship and decide to part ways. Immediately, they get involved in this lengthy court procedure which, in the final analysis, costs them $7,000. Let us look at some of the more technical aspects of the debate we are having here tonight. In 1996, the changes did not relieve the employer of the burden of defending the claim, even if the employer felt that they were defending a claim not based on merit. It did not relieve the employers of the fear of an arbitrary outcome that could compel them to a commercial settlement regardless of the merits of the case. The employers were prepared to settle, make the payment and get rid of the case that was around. The implementation of this suggestion would remove from employers the fear that they would be unfairly attacked by the employees on the unfair dismissal situation.Let us look at some of the surveys of the professional groups who talk to small business. I do not think the member for Griffith has talked to a small businessman in his life. He did not quote one bit of evidence to support his case. The Morgan and Banks 1996 survey indicated that 16 per cent of businesses with fewer than 30 employees had been adversely affected in their hiring intentions by the previous federal unfair dismissal laws—the Laurie Brereton laws, based on the ILO. A Recruitment Solutions survey released in April 1997 indicated that 32 per cent of businesses in metropolitan Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane had been subject to some sort of unfair dismissal claim in the 12 months covered by the survey. We have the real evidence, which the member for Griffith conveniently overlooked, that people who were doing the employing, paying the wages, paying the overheads, were very concerned about the unfair dismissal laws. In May 1997, the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce and St George Bank found that 56 per cent of businesses surveyed said that the prospect of unfair dismissal claims had discouraged them from recruiting additional staff. We have it clearly on the record that those employers who were going to pay the wages were just deterred from making that final decision to put extra staff on because they were very concerned they would be up for at least $6,000 if an unfair dismissal case came along, and probably $7,000 or $8,000. What about this? The National Institute of Labour Studies, in May 1997, was commissioned by the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs and found that the unfair dismissal laws strongly influenced hiring decisions. There we have it. That was a survey supporting what the government is trying to do. The government is trying to set up a situation where employers can be confident that they can put some young people on—young people who have not been given a go—so that they can possibly get a job. The Yellow Pages Small Business Index surveys conducted in October-November 1997 covered 1,200 randomly selected proprietors of small businesses. Listen to this: 79 per cent of proprietors thought small businesses would be better off if they were exempted from the unfair dismissal laws; 80 per cent of small businesses said that unfair dismissal laws are hopeless; 33 per cent of small businesses reported that they would have been more likely to recruit new employees if they had been exempted from the unfair dismissal laws in 1996 and 1997; and 38 per cent of small businesses reported that they would be more likely to recruit new employees if they were exempted from the current unfair dismissal laws. That evidence is better than the ideological commitment of the member for Griffith and those opposite who speak of a matter of conspiracy in relation to the unfair dismissal laws. In March 1998, the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce revealed that 85 per cent of small businesses nominated unfair dismissals as a key issue for businesses with 15 or fewer employees. That compares very favourably with my own assessment in the electorate, and the shadow minister at the table, the shadow Attorney-General, would understand that. He would have been out in his electorate from time to time—not often—talking to some of those small businesses and would understand that that is what they said to him. But he would not be listening too carefully because he is committed to the party line.In July 1998, the South Australian employers chamber of commerce revealed that 52 per cent of respondents who had been subject to unfair dismissal claims had not hired replacement employees. What better evidence do you get than that? They had been subjected to the treatment, it had cost them $7,000 and they said, `Look, we'll make do with what we've got.' So there we have it: a surprising lot of evidence that out there amongst small business the big employers are very unhappy with the unfair dismissals position that was introduced by the Labor government, moderated by the Howard government and to which we are suggesting some further changes to really make it work.It is interesting that the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act, introduced by the Hawke government in 1986, excludes from its operation employers with fewer than 10 employees. They conceded the principle that smaller businesses were different, that you could not implement some of these programs because there was not enough information and there was not enough ability by those small businesses to cope with equal opportunity. The Hawke government, for all their commitment to unfair dismissal and equal opportunities, said, `On balance we should exclude small business because they just can't cope with the data, the information and the ability to incorporate that in the act.'It is interesting to look at the overseas experience. Not only in Australia but in Austria they are saying that special legislation is needed to make allowance for firms with fewer than five employees. In France they are saying no damages can be awarded for unfair dismissal if the small business has fewer than 11 employees. France tends to be a socialist state and even in that country they are saying, `Look, if you've only got 11 employees, you cannot have this unfair dismissal set of arrangements.' In Germany, since 1999 unfair dismissal laws have not applied to firms employing fewer than five employees. Between 1996 and 1999 the threshold got up to 10 employees. Germany has very strong industrial relations laws which they are trying to change because their productivity is falling. In the Republic of South Korea, a new South-East Asian nation, they are talking about similar situations of small businesses with fewer than five employees. So we have a remarkable situation where all the evidence on the ground shows that anyone who is trying to do the right thing and employ new people finds that the unfair dismissal law does not stand up. Surprise, surprise! Down in Victoria they are introducing a new bill—and you would be aware of it, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker—the Fair Employment Bill. They invited Mr Sweeney to survey 400 small businesses in Victoria. The Trades Hall Council wanted to find out what was going on with businesses' attitude to the Fair Employment Bill. Amongst some of the results, they found that 39 per cent of small businesses say that unfair dismissal laws had an effect on their business. That is in the citadel of the new Labor government where they are introducing a roll-back of industrial relations, if ever I have seen one, in the Fair Employment Bill. Yet amongst an independent survey you had about 40 per cent of the people saying, `Look, it's not really a goer.' What better evidence could you get? I invite the member for Griffith to refute that at a future date: that his own Labor government in Victoria is associated with an independent survey suggesting it is not working.Finally, even the famous International Labour Organisation, from where the whole unfair dismissals matter emerged under the Brereton legislation, are allowing special scope for problems of a serious nature because of the size of an enterprise. Even that citadel of support for the opposition—if you cannot win the argument in Australia, you move offshore and get the ILO to support your position—are saying, `Look, if you've got a smaller enterprise, we really don't think you can have unfair dismissal.'I think the case is overwhelmingly in favour of supporting the government's unfair dismissal provisions in the bill before the House of Representatives. I would encourage those opposite to support it at long last. If they actually go and talk to their constituency, small businesses—the bigger employer of the labour force—they would find that they would be on a winner. But they are not going to support it because they are ideologically committed. They have rejected it on previous occasions. I would encourage them to, unlike the member for Griffith and a few others, reconsider their position, look at the facts, talk to small business, change their mind and, on this occasion, encourage the Senate to pass it. I would encourage the Democrats to support a very sensible provision, a very good provision, which affects a number of young people who could get a job if only this were changed. It would encourage those employers to take the risk, put some young people on, and give them a go, yet those opposite are deadly opposed to this particular proposition. I strongly commend the bill to the parliament. I strongly commend the bill to the Senate and I hope on this occasion the Senate will support it.21:28:0024989McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The previous speaker on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 [No. 2] suggested I may not have as an extensive a knowledge of small business as he or someone opposite has. For some 15 years before entering this House, I was certainly a participant in a small business and in the last decade or so I was a small business proprietor in the sense that I was a partner in a legal firm. That is a point well worth making. Being partnerships—until recently they were unable to incorporate in New South Wales—legal firms were not obviously corporations and, not being corporations, they were not bound by the federal legislation, the Workplace Relations Act. Also, employees of legal firms—certainly in my experience in New South Wales—are not subject to a federal award; they are regulated by state awards. That is one example—partnerships.There are many other examples, because I think something like 53 per cent of small businesses are not incorporated—that is, they are sole traders. They are on their own or they may, with another partner, employ some people or they may, as an individual, employ people. Some 53 per cent of small businesses are not incorporated; therefore, this legislation has nothing at all to do with them. This act does not apply to unincorporated businesses unless they are a respondent to a federal award. The government has no figures on that, but it is fair to say that whether or not it is a majority the government has not done the research and I do not have the resources to do the research. But the point is that this bill will have very little impact on the economy because it applies to so few employers. So let us get the facts right. I should state for the record that, before coming into parliament, I was, for my sins, the staff partner responsible for employing staff in my legal firm. I have to acknowledge that, on a couple of occasions, the firm had, as a result of my decisions, unfair dismissal actions served upon it. No-one likes that. My nose was well and truly out of joint. The facts of the matter are that this legislation was intended to have, and in fact has had, a significant educative role. It has informed the business community what is a fair thing to do in these circumstances. I certainly learnt, after being the subject of allegations, that, yes, I could have sat down with someone and said, `Listen, we're not happy with how you're going; let's work out how we can lift your game.' In other words, I learnt to have the courage to sit the person down and put to them my concerns about how they were doing the job. The concept of a fair go all round is incorporated in the act already, and Labor supported that. Indeed, it comes from a famous case of Loty and Holloway—and I know Necia Holloway very well, because she worked for a famous old trade union official called Charlie Oliver, who was, for a long while, the State Secretary of the Australian Workers Union. Necia was quite a character.The case that she was involved in—indeed as an applicant—determined that, in looking at whether an employee has been unfairly dismissed, you look at all the circumstances. You look at whether there was a fair go all round. There is nothing more Australian than that phrase—a fair go all round.The government have clearly brought this legislation on because they have made such an atrocious mess of the business activity statement. They are desperately trying to win back the small business constituency. The first thing we ask is: how many small businesses are affected by the legislation? The answer to that seems to be by virtue of a reply to a question on notice when this legislation was floated, I think for the second time, on 15 July 1998. Mr Reith, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business as he then was, said:It is not possible to specify the number of small businesses which would directly benefit from the Government's proposed exemption from unfair dismissal laws for small businesses, as the operation of the provisions, according to the criteria outlined above—and it went through the provisions of the act—would depend on the details of the interrelationship between federal and State legislation, in each State, at the relevant time.So the small business community are again being conned by this government. They are being conned because the legislation is going to apply to so few of them; firstly, because so many of them will not be employing under federal awards and, secondly, because so many of them are not incorporated. Following his response to my series of questions, I tried to tease out a further answer from Minister Reith, which I got on 12 August 1999. I asked:What percentage of businesses employing 15 people or fewer are (a) constitutional corporations, (b) respondents to a federal industrial award ...The minister replied:(a) approximately 47% of businesses employing between 1 and 15 employees were incorporated.That is, 53 per cent—the majority—are unincorporated and hence not covered by this act. That comes from that statement. In respect of part (b) of my question about how many of that 53 per cent were respondents to a federal award—and if they were, it would be conceded they would come under this federal legislation—the answer was: (b) no relevant data is available.So they are here at the dispatch box saying, `Well, look, small business, we know we've more than knocked you about. We've kicked the stuffing out of you with the business activity statement. We're making amends because we are exempting you from the unfair dismissal laws.' But they cannot say how many are going to be affected. They have not done their homework. In order to take away rights of ordinary Australians, surely you have to have a compelling argument. They do not even have the figures. They are once again conning small business.Let us talk about those people whose rights are being taken away. On the basis of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia 1996-97 report, which contains the most recent figures that I have, approximately 50 per cent of applicants before the court were between the ages of 36 and 50. They are pretty vulnerable years. I am now 43 years of age, and if I am not elected the next time around I suppose I could go back to the law and not have to worry about moving boxes in a warehouse or carting bricks. But if I had to go back to a manual job, at 43 I would be in trouble.I have a little more experience than the young guns coming out of university but, traditionally, if you are over 40 you are pushing it to get a job. Fifty per cent of unfair dismissals claims are by people over 36 years of age and a fair proportion of those are over the age of 40. This is the time when you have kids at school, health bills, kids' dental braces and, of course, mortgage payments. This is the time when not only your security but the security of your family is directly related to your employment. To say, `We don't care; you are not entitled to a fair go all round—up yours. You have invested the last 20 years of your life with our company but we're not concerned about that— out the door. We are a company of fewer than 15 employees and we don't have to give you reasons; we don't have to give you an opportunity to correct what we are unhappy about—off you go' is an outrageous situation in the year 2001. That is just unspeakably outrageous.This is in a context where the greatest source of insecurity for workers these days is the dramatic and exponentially increasing trend towards the casualisation and part timing, if you like, of the work force. That is a source of real insecurity. What remedies does an employee have if the boss comes in one morning and says, `I have been advised by my accountant that I can save a quid if I turn you all into casuals,' or, indeed, `I don't want all of you; I'm just going to employ some people for casuals. I think I can get younger workers to do the work so I'm going to get some casual younger employees—off you go.' What rights do you have? You have none if this bill goes through. A worker has no rights at all because there is no right of unfair dismissal in circumstances where the dismissal is due to a structural change in the work force. The employer has no obligation to consult with the workers concerned and, under this government, no obligation to consult with their trade union. Indeed, under the provisions of section 89A of the act, there can no longer be contained in an industrial award a provision requiring the employer to consult prior to introducing structural change. The greatest cause of insecurity in the work force—casualisation and being turned into part timers—is without remedy if this bill goes through.What effect is this going to have in the context of a slowing economy? What effect is it going to have on people who are in a job but who are a not going to know whether, in six months time, three months time or indeed two weeks time, they are still going to be in employment? They will not spend. If this bill goes through, it is going to have a dramatic effect on insecurity in the work force and, I surmise, it will have knock-on consequences for consumer confidence. Again, this is in the context where we have no data at all. Again, what are we talking about? Who are we talking about? Who are these people who deserve to have their rights taken away from them because the government is trying to win back small businesses from the hiding they gave them with the business activity statement? Again, on the figures of the Industrial Relations Court for the last year that it operated prior to its effective abolition, a total of 48 per cent of applicants had incomes below $25,000 per year and 63 per cent had incomes below $30,000 a year. These are people who, on those levels of income, are trying to bring up families. They are the ones being victimised by this government which is trying to win back small business. It is the ultimate in hypocrisy, the ultimate in politicking. They are putting this bill forward as a double dissolution trigger. In respect of that we say, bring on your double dissolution because we will point out to small businesses how very few of them would be affected and that the only concept that really is involved here is whether ordinary Australians on the sort of income I am talking about—below $30,000—are entitled to a fair go all round. While small business owners are small business owners, they are also parents and grandparents, and they do not want their kids going out into the work force where they can be dismissed arbitrarily and capriciously without being given a fair go. It can have a devastating effect on a young person, to be dismissed in those circumstances. It can affect their confidence dramatically. Indeed, as I have indicated, if more senior Australians—and I put myself in that category—lose their jobs, it can have a dramatic effect on their entire lifestyle and, it is fair to say, the economic pressure of unemployment has one of the greatest impacts on marital survival. This government will throw in things like they did in question time today and repeat phrases like `family values'. Family values—my goodness me! If workers—parents, fathers and mothers—can be sacked without a fair go, how can they say they are concerned about family values? It is a complete travesty.On the previous occasions that this bill has been before the House I have gone through its provisions in quite some detail. I will not specifically go through them other than to mention a few provisions which are really going to be to the disadvantage of workers living in rural and regional areas or indeed in cities when they are located away from a source of legal advice. For instance, the test as to whether they can get an extension of time for filing their application is much more severe now—they will effectively bear the onus. So someone, paradoxically, who is not a member of a trade union and cannot get access to advice is going to be at a disadvantage.There are very technical requirements requiring the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to bring on a mini trial, if you like, if there is a jurisdictional issue involved. There are all kinds of false logic involved in this act—for instance, the obligation on the conciliator from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to provide a certificate which has to state, and I will quote from the act:...on the balance of probabilities, the applicants' claim in respect of the ground...is likely to succeed.Again, in terms of a conciliation process—a process designed to bring the parties together—the parties will be compelled to go into litigation mode because the whole aim of progressing the matter further will be to get one of these certificates. You would be crazy, if you were an employer, to be making an offer of settlement because it would, by your gesture, indicate to the conciliator that you believed there was some merit in the applicant's claim. There are all kinds of cases—Doyle and the Western Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club was a case that I was involved in where Justice Michael Moore in the Federal Court of Australia said that the whole purpose of conciliation is to try to bring parties together. The recourse and the outcome of a conciliation most certainly should not be disclosed in subsequent legal proceedings but this bill, if passed, will institutionalise that—against commonsense.This conciliation certificate has vital importance because, if litigation continues beyond the conciliation stage, there are all kinds of cost penalties involved for the applicant and, indeed, there are all kinds of cost penalties involved for the lawyers if they continue an action after a conciliation stage, if the certificate is not in their favour, because they will effectively bear the onus of proving that they were justified in continuing the action. Now, that is contrary to all norms of representation in any other area. There are no other areas of commerce or contractual relationships where such draconian provisions are imposed on vulnerable people, at a most vulnerable time in their lives—when they are worried about putting food on the table—and having to think about representation and costs penalties. Of course it will scare people off and that is what the government wants to do. It wants to scare people away from pursuing their rights but the trouble is the people who will be scared away from pursuing their rights are our fellow Australians—they are mothers and fathers with kids. They will be fellow Australians who have lost their jobs in declining economic circumstances, in situations where not only their well-being is at risk but also the well-being of their family members and we are talking about imposing all of these draconian penalties in addition to, as I indicated at the outset, removing rights. And all of this for why? The government cannot tell us because fundamentally they cannot tell us how many small businesses would be involved. On all of the logic, it would be very few in the overall context of the economy because so many small businesses are not corporations and do not employ their employees under federal awards. Again, the government is conning small business, but in the process of using scapegoats, as is their custom, who are the scapegoats? They are vulnerable, ordinary Australians whom, one would think, we have an obligation to protect. (Time expired)21:48:0024993Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I guess the people of Australia have a clear choice when it comes to looking at the policies espoused by the government and by the opposition. It is a very stark choice. It is good to see there is healthy debate in the country but the government stands now on five years of record in industrial relations. It does not stand on what might or might not happen; it stands on facts. One of the stark facts is to compare the government's record in terms of employment to that of the Australian Labor Party. In the last five years of the Australian Labor Party's rule, 27,000 new jobs were created. In the last five years under the coalition 371,000 new jobs have been created. That does not sound to me like we want to have laws that cause people to lose their jobs. I think it stands in stark contrast to the performance of the Australian Labor Party.It puzzles me to hear arguments, as we have just heard from the member for Barton, about the casualisation of the workforce. It puzzles me to hear him argue that bringing in these unfair dismissals laws would result in employers employing more casuals and not a number of permanents. That is the situation at the moment, without changing the law. Many small businesses do not employ full-time employees. They employ casuals because they are afraid of the consequences of the current legislation. It is an enigma on which the Labor Party is trying to have a both ways bet but you cannot do that. You must stand on the facts of the matter and the facts are that currently most small businesses will tell you, as you move about the electorate, that they do not want to employ an additional person because of the possible legal consequences. It is sad to see the Labor Party arguing both ways. I believe, having moved very widely in the small business community that, indeed, the situation is that if the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 were passed through the chamber, we would get a lot more full-time employment, and a lot more permanent full-time employment.I also point to the wonderful results from the other changes in industrial relations that this government has brought in, for example, the success of the Australian workplace agreements. The success is there because not only does the employer get a better deal but the employee gets a better deal. It is a win-win situation. In most of the cases that I know, employees end up taking more money home. They end up working the hours they want to work, the employer gets the productivity when the employer wants the productivity, and so on. There is such flexibility there that both parties win. There is something else we have to be mindful of. Yesterday in the Clean Up Australia program that I was involved in I was with the general manager of Jupiters casino and hotel in Townsville. As we were picking up all the rubbish, I was pleased to see that there was less rubbish this year than last year. Australians are getting cleaner, and that is a wonderful result. We were talking about industrial relations laws and how they affect his particular operation. That operation depends on having a large casual work force because you do not know how many banquets you might have each week or whatever. The unions are trying to come in and say, `Well, we shouldn't have a casual work force.' What they do not understand is that many employees actually like to be casuals. It suits them. It suits their lifestyle, it suits their family circumstances. They want to be able to work casually. Yet we have the Australian Labor Party trying to tell employees that they should not be working that way, that they know better. They do not know better. The employee knows how they want to work. I guess what we discussed yesterday was a classic example of how the Australian Labor Party do not understand that we need to be mindful of the needs of both employers and employees.So here we are debating this bill again. We as a government will continue to put this bill up because we believe that it is right for both employers and employees. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that no employer who has a good employee will ever sack that employee unreasonably, because employees are your best asset. That is the first rule of business: if you have a good employee, you keep the employee, because they are your best way of operating a strong and successful business. Barring the odd shark or two out there, and they will always be out there, most employers are decent people and they understand that if you get a good employee you will continue to employ that person, so there is no danger of that person unreasonably or improperly losing their job. I am pleased to see that the government continues to put this bill to the parliament to have it debated, to allow the opportunity for the Australian public to understand what it is that we are trying to do and to listen to the debate on both sides. From my experience, the unfair dismissal legislation certainly militates very much against employing more people in this country. Heaven only knows, we need to employ more people. The government intends to continue to do everything it can to get more employment in the country, and this is one of the mechanisms by which we can do it. This bill reflects the Howard government's policy that we took to the electorate in 1996 and again in 1998. There is no misunderstanding about the government's position. It has been endorsed by the Australian public on two occasions, yet the opposition continues to oppose it. The aim of the bill is simply to provide more jobs and to give relief to small businesses which sometimes can be faced with very difficult situations. I am led to believe that this bill has the power to create some 50,000 new jobs. I know that has been challenged, but I believe that could happen. I can assure the House that this bill will be welcomed in my electorate. To drive unemployment down further, we need to continue reform in the workplace relations system. The government has a strong record in that respect. Defence of an unfair dismissal claim, however groundless, is especially burdensome for small business. Unlike large corporations and businesses, small businesses did not have the resources, the time or the money to put into hiring and termination processes. The measures in this bill protect small business and protect current employees. Employers retain rights in respect of unlawful dismissal, such as discrimination based dismissals, for all employees, new and current, including those in small business.I have spoken previously on this bill, as a number of members have. I remain rock solid in my conviction that this legislation will result in significantly more employment in the country and will not cause the problems that the opposition is suggesting that it might. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the bill tonight and I thoroughly endorse it. 22:00:0024995Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Tonight I rise to strongly oppose the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 [No. 2]. Labor has consistently opposed this bill because it seeks to skew federal termination legislation in favour of employers and to deliver an upper cut to the employees. The bill is probably one of the best examples of the Liberal-National Party coalition's mantra; that is, favouritism towards elites and support for those who own property and the means to acquire capital over those who have only their labour to sell.Once again, three years after this legislation was first introduced into the parliament, the coalition has dredged up the same old tired, unfair policies in an attempt to undermine the rights of Australian workers. No wonder the Australian electorate are becoming increasingly bitter about the Howard government. Their job security and prospects are once again flying out the window with the prospect that this disgraceful legislation may pass through this parliament.Let me take a brief moment to examine exactly what `unfair dismissal' means. According to the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary, third edition, `unfair' means not equitable or honest, or not impartial or according to the rules. According to the same volume, to `dismiss' is to discharge from employment or office, especially dishonourably. In summary, this means that an unfair dismissal is a discharge from employment which is not impartial or according to the rules. According to the definition of `unfair dismissal law', it is a situation where the employer's behaviour in ending an employment relationship can be characterised as `harsh, unjust or unreasonable'. It is important to mention the difference between unfair and unlawful dismissal. VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McArthur—What about the act? 83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—We will get to that. Unlawful dismissal is where an employee may not be dismissed for discriminatory reasons such as family responsibilities, sexual preference, age or union membership, or because they were involved in protected—lawful—industrial action such as negotiating a certified agreement. The most recent history of unfair dismissal legislation in Australia stems from March 1994 under the visionary Keating Labor government, which brought down the Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993 and amended the Industrial Relations Act 1998 to allow workers under federal awards to have access to statutory and award based remedies which workers covered by state awards had had access to for many years. In 1996 when the present Howard coalition government came to power it described this legislation, according to the Bills Digest, as legislation that was `far too detailed, too prescriptive and too legalistic and hence a disincentive to work'. What does this bill do? I will tell you. The bill seeks to amend the Howard government's own legislation, the Workplace Relations Act 1996, to exclude new employees, except for apprentices and trainees, of businesses—VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McArthur—That is right, except them. 83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—I am very pleased that the member for Corangamite is listening so intently. I enjoy debating the member for Corangamite. Perhaps he will learn something because, as a member of a government that is clearly insecure at the moment, he will have a better understanding of the concerns of many of the workers out there that we on this side of the House stand up for. Perhaps he can convey a message to the Prime Minister and the cabinet about the insecurity felt by the work force out there, because it is those people who will decide the election when it is held on 17 November or on 24 November or on 1 December, or whenever. VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McArthur—You will lose the seat. That will be the difference. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Corangamite will be silent, and the member for Lowe will ignore the interjections of the member for Corangamite and address his remarks through the chair. 83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—It is a bit hard to ignore the interjections. I cannot run away from those interjections. Bearing in mind that this is an election year the previous speaker, the member for Herbert, started off and made it quite plain that the Australian people will have a clear choice—I have made a note here—at the next election between the coalition government and the Beazley Labor opposition. I will come to that a bit later, if I get an opportunity, but I am sure the member for Corangamite's interjections are as good natured as they usually are.As I was saying, this bill seeks to amend the Workplace Relations Act to exclude from federal unfair dismissal laws new employees of businesses with 15 or fewer employees and to establish a six-month qualifying period of employment for new employees who want to access the unfair dismissal laws. Not only this; casual employees are excluded from the count if they have been employed for less than 12 months, effectively meaning that the work force is due to increase casual employees in the workplace. Given that 27 per cent of the work force is already casually employed, this would allow employers to employ a high number of casuals to avoid termination obligations to employees.In relation to that point, the member for Herbert raised this very issue about casual employees a moment ago. We on this side of the House have no problems if people want to work casually or they want to only work part time. We have no problem with that. Last Tuesday, at the Australia Institute, I attended an erudite address given by the shadow employment services minister, the member for Dickson, Cheryl Kernot. She raised a very valid point about the ABS statistics that reflect our levels of unemployment in Australia. It is a fact that, if you happen to be engaged in remunerative employment for more than one hour a week, the ABS determines that you are not unemployed. In Australia, we do not even ask those people who are working for only one hour or perhaps eight, 16 or 20 hours whether they would like to work a longer period of time. The member for Dickson's address to the Australia Institute was very well received. I think there should be some bipartisan support for it, because the true level of unemployment in Australia is significantly higher than what the statistics reflect.GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss Jackie Kelly—Imagine what it was when it was 11 per cent.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—It has been higher. I accept that the member for Lindsay makes a valid point, but we cannot undo the past. We are looking at the situation at the moment and there are many people out there who are working only part time or a small number of hours and want to work for a longer period of time, yet we do not take that into account. So I think the member for Dickson has a very good point and we should be doing something about that. I hope that Mr Abbott gets a copy of her speech to the Australia Institute because I think that will help him in this very important issue.The previous Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Peter Reith, declared that this bill was a necessity because it would create 50,000 jobs in small business, that it would ease the burden of unfair dismissal laws on small business and provide a fairer balance between the rights of employers and employees and deter trivial claims. I put to the House tonight that implementation of the Howard government's new tax system and increased red tape caused by the business activity statement have been far more expensive to small business and damaging to job creation in less than one year than any unfair dismissal law since 1994. The major problem faced by small businesses today is that they now have to spend too much time being unpaid tax collectors for the government. Recently, I was talking to the proprietors of a small petrol service station in my electorate and was advised that they have spent almost $30,000 to deal with the GST. That amount of money is made up of the revenue that they have had to spend on the software, the hardware and the training to act as tax collectors for the government. They pointed out to me that they had a clear recollection that it was going to cost them only about $7,000 according to the government's estimates. 8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—That's true. I was shadow minister for small business at the time; I remember the figures.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—The member for Cunningham is supporting me. That is what they said to me. They said that they could have possibly got away with it for $7,000 but that, if they had not introduced the appropriate software and hardware to their business, they would have found themselves consumed in paperwork which would have meant a loss of productivity and efficiency in their business and would not have been very cost effective. So they spent nearly $30,000. Another local business that I spoke to is a barbecue chicken operation. The people who run it told me that they have spent $20,000 to covert to the GST. They told a story similar to the one of the people running the petrol station. Those are just two examples; there are others. Quite plainly, small business has been belted across the head.Some 93 per cent of businesses surveyed recently by Morgan and Banks said that they were much worse off and that their profitability had suffered as a result of the GST. How can more jobs be created when all this legislation achieves is to permit employers to sack their employees? The only evidence available which validates the government's claim that 50,000 jobs will be created if small businesses were exempt from unfair dismissal laws is a mere opinion of Mr Rob Abstain of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia. This is preposterous. Just one person's opinion has provided the basis of a policy statistic. What a joke!Real evidence on employment attitudes of small business, as pointed out by Labor senators in their minority report into the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill, exists in the Australian workplace industrial relations survey of 1995. This survey, which notably was done when Labor's unfair dismissal laws were in operation, found that only 0.9 per cent of respondents had not recruited employees due to unfair dismissal legislation—a paltry 0.9 per cent. In fact, 68 per cent of businesses had not employed new staff because they did not need any new employees. How the government could believe such a statistic could change to such an enormous extent is beyond me. Quite frankly, I think the government members who support this bill on the basis of job creation are out of their minds. In 1999, the Mercer-Melbourne Institute Quarterly Bulletin of Economic Trends said:... further IR reform is unlikely to result in a significant reduction in unemployment.This again supports Labor's belief that removing the unfair dismissal legislation will not have an effect on job creation; it will in fact lead to an increased cycle of unemployment for many people and a lack of job security for Australian workers. This is a disgrace. This legislation will effectively mean that, where work becomes available, there will be employment but that, as soon as the work runs out, the employee will have no job security and may be dismissed unfairly with no redress available. I remind the House of the words of the honourable member for La Trobe in this debate last Thursday. He said:... as a result of the industrial relations changes that we made, we have seen increased productivity, increased real wages and increased employment.The honourable member continued by saying:More people have jobs, and that kicks the economy along a little better—they live better, they can do more things for their children, their education standards are likely to be improved, their living standards are improved and society moves on.This is an interesting analysis of the benefits of unfair dismissal legislation and the industrial relations changes made by the Howard government, particularly in light of today's report on the ninemsn web site titled `ACTU survey another blow to federal government'. The story states:Nearly 60 per cent of working Australians are having more trouble balancing demands of work and family, 42 per cent of workers are doing more unpaid overtime and 43 per cent of workers feel less secure in their job, the study found. More damning is the fact that the study also found that `more than 70 per cent of those surveyed said the government had made life harder by cutting back on services such as health and education'.This bill is an assault on workers' rights to access federal termination laws. My colleague and shadow minister for industrial relations, the Hon. Arch Bevis, is correct when he says that this bill will create two classes of employees—those who are employed by small business and who will not have access to unfair dismissal laws, and those who work for businesses with more than 15 employees and who can expect to be treated impartially and have access to federal unfair dismissal laws. I also have grave concerns that some shonky companies employing 16 or 17 employees may reduce staff numbers and employ only casuals so that they can fall under the umbrella of this legislation, thereby reducing jobs and job security for their employees, without fear of redress. The people most affected by these new laws are Commonwealth public sector workers, employees who work in Victoria—their state system was dismantled under the coalition—or who work in a federal territory, and some other workers who are employed under a federal award.I make the point again that the laws the government is attempting to change are the government's own unfair dismissal laws. In 1996, the Howard government changed Labor's unfair dismissal laws to ensure that the onus was on the employee to prove that the dismissal was unfair, harsh or unjust treatment, rather than the employer having to disprove it. Hearings relating to unfair dismissals were changed so that they would be held in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission rather than in the Federal Court, leading to a reduction in costs. The changed unfair dismissal laws allow costs to be awarded against the employee if the claim is considered to be vexatious or frivolous. They allow the introduction of an application fee of $50 to create a disincentive for people to proceed with an unfair dismissal claim. The commission is now required to take into account the viability of the employer's business when deciding whether to award a remedy to the former employee. The process is no longer required to be procedurally fair. The government is once again attempting to fully remove the rights of workers.I also have some concerns that this legislation may conflict with Australia's responsibility under the International Labour Organisation Convention on the Termination of Employment 1982, convention No. 158, which Australia ratified on 26 February 1993—almost exactly eight years ago. According to the Bills Digest, there may be some need to closely consider whether the exemption for small businesses employing under 15 staff is at odds with convention No. 158. As my colleague and shadow minister Arch Bevis touched on earlier in this debate, the chances of a conflict with the convention grow as the number of workers who are excluded increases. In terms of international policy obligations, this is of great concern. The issues I raise tonight are particularly serious. I call on all members of the House to reject the legislation. If the member for Herbert wants an election on this issue, let us bring it on. (Time expired)22:19:0024998Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—It is a pleasure for me to rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 [No. 2], although it is a great disappointment that it has been blocked on so many occasions by the Labor Party and by the Democrats. I say that because, when I came into this House in 1993, I came in on the platform of trying to look after small business in this country. The fact is that many of the million or so small enterprises in Australia today are family owned and family run. They are not businesses making huge profits. They are hardworking families who work long hours, and they have many burdens placed upon them.I remember that, when I was made shadow minister for small business and had the opportunity to meet business people from all over Australia, one of the most memorable meetings I had was in the Newcastle markets. All the fruit and vegetable growers and the market people came to this meeting, and the minister for the then Labor government was there. We stood on the back of a truck in the Newcastle markets and debated this particular issue of unfair dismissal. It got national coverage in the media, as I recall, and it was really interesting because the then Labor Prime Minister came out the next day or a couple of days later and spoke out about the unfair dismissal laws and agreed that, if Labor got back into office, they would indeed have to do something about this. When I was shadow minister and I travelled the country talking to businesses, it was the No. 1 issue for small businesses. There is no doubt that the way in which this unfair dismissal law worked was imposing a considerable burden on small businesses, and therefore it was a great disincentive for them to employ. We heard the member for Lowe talking about how ridiculous it was to say that employment could be created if this law were not in place. The point is that this law is an impediment to employment amongst our small businesses in Australia today.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—But it's your law.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—We have tried many times to amend this unfair dismissal law.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—You amended it in 1996.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—The member for Hunter is right. We did amend it, but we sought further amendments to that bill because of the difficulties it was causing small business. It has been blocked on every occasion by Labor who are anti-jobs and anti-small business. That is evident by the way they have blocked and prevented these amendments from going through.The member for Lowe talked about it being rubbish that this was such a big issue in the community. I think a number of members have talked about this, but I would like to go through some of the groups that have spoken about the unfair dismissal laws and the difficulties that arise from them—it has a long history—and I am going to quote a few of them. The 1996 Morgan and Banks survey indicated that 16 per cent of businesses with fewer than 30 employees had been adversely affected in their hiring intentions by the previous federal unfair dismissal laws. The Recruitment Solutions survey released in April 1997 indicated that 32 per cent of businesses in metropolitan Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane had been the subject of some sort of unfair dismissal claim in the 12 months covered by that survey. In May 1997, there was a survey by the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce and the St George Bank where 56 per cent of businesses surveyed said that the prospect of unfair dismissal claims had discouraged them from recruiting additional staff. Trends in staff selection and recruitment, a report by the National Institute of Labour Studies in May 1997, commissioned by the then Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, found that unfair dismissal laws strongly influenced hiring decisions. Then there was the Yellow Pages Small Business Index survey conducted in October and November 1997 covering 1,200 randomly selected proprietors of small business. In this survey, 79 per cent of proprietors thought small businesses would be better off if they were exempted from unfair dismissal laws, 33 per cent of small businesses reported that they would have been more likely to recruit new employees if they had been exempted from unfair dismissal laws in 1996 and 1997 and 38 per cent of small businesses reported that they would be more likely to recruit new employees if they were exempted from the current unfair dismissal laws.In March 1998, the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce revealed that 85 per cent of small businesses nominated unfair dismissals as a key issue for businesses with 15 or more employees. In July 1998, the South Australian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry revealed that 52 per cent of respondents who had been subject to unfair dismissal claims had not hired replacement employees and 77 per cent of respondents with fewer than 15 employees indicated that they would hire more employees if exempted from unfair dismissal legislation. In Queensland, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry pre federal election survey conducted in July 1998 said that unfair dismissal legislation was ranked as the third most important issue, only five points behind the top rating issue of taxation changes. The Australian Business Chamber also surveyed its members in July 1998 in preparation for an impending federal election. In its survey of unfair dismissals, it placed it fourth overall with a rating of 77—the top three issues all related to tax. Survey results were also aggregated according to the number of employees employed by each respondent. Employers with zero to 20 employees comprised 62 per cent of the respondents and they ranked unfair dismissal as their sixth most important issue. Unfair dismissals ranked very highly in all of these surveys, and these certainly cannot be so easily dismissed by the member for Lowe. The member for Lowe started by talking about why we should maintain unfair dismissal laws to protect employees. I do not think any of us in this place think that it should be open slather, that employers should be able to be unfair and unlawful in the way they deal with their employees. There is a responsibility on both sides. During the worst of the debate on unfair dismissals, and in information coming back from small businesses, we find that very often, when they went to the tribunal to try to sort out the issues, the person being dismissed—making a claim for some tens of thousands of dollars in some cases from small family owned and operated businesses—did not bother to show up. I know that people travelled from the north-west of Western Australia—600 kilometres and so on—to the city to come before a tribunal to have their case heard only to be sent back home again because the person did not bother to show up. I know that when I was shadow minister there were in excess of 10,000 cases clogging the courts. Businesses, large and small, became very reluctant to put on additional labour. The Labor Party has constantly resisted what is blatantly obvious—that this is an impediment to employment, that it is costing small business and that it is costing, ultimately, employees. There is nothing to be gained by having people unemployed. It brings about social dislocation and economic disadvantage. So there is nothing to be gained for the people who would like to work, whose job opportunities are interfered with by laws that place an unrealistic and unwanted burden on small business.I think it is important to note that the proposed amendments generally exempt small businesses with 15 or fewer employees from federal unfair dismissal laws and provide that only employees, other than apprentices and designated trainees, who have been continuously engaged by the same employer for at least six months may access federal unfair dismissal remedies.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I understand from a comment made by the Deputy Speaker as I came to the chair that the member for Pearce would like to seek leave to continue her remarks prior to the House adjourning. Am I correct?4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—Yes, that is correct.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Leave is granted. The debate is adjourned and the member for Pearce will have an opportunity to continue her participation when the debate is resumed.Bills25000The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Medicare Levy Amendment (CPI Indexation) Bill (No. 2) 2000.Adjournment25000Motion (by Mrs Gallus) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.2500022:30:0025000Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—One of the big questions that needs to be asked about Shell's bid for Woodside is: why was it necessary last week, as reported in the Australian today, for the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to call in all of the North West Shelf joint venture partners for a chat about marketing LNG to China? The reported reason for their concern was the possible loss of a contract with China, potentially worth more than $20 billion over 30 years. Joint venturers in the North West Shelf—Woodside, Shell, BP, BHP Petroleum, Chevron, and Mitsubishi-Mitsui—have less in common than the government might hope. The contract in question is for an LNG receiving terminal in Guangdong province, with an expected value of $600 million. It is assumed by most of the bidders that success in the bid to build the terminal will put the successful tenderer in a position of advantage to win contracts to supply the province with gas. A consortium led by Woodside, which includes two other North West Shelf partners—Chevron and BHP Petroleum—is bidding. But so too are two other companies that are part of the North West Shelf joint venture: BP and Shell. However, the bids of BP and Shell are being run by their head offices in London and The Hague. This is an example of where the larger multinationals in the North West Shelf joint venture have competing interests. In particular, I want to draw attention to the Shell bid because of comments made by Raoul Restucci, the executive responsible for Shell's bid for Woodside. In December, Mr Restucci was reported in the Scottish paper, the Evening News, as saying:If Shell wins control after the shareholder vote, probably in late March or April, it will aim to stop Woodside from competing directly with Shell, as it has in liquefied natural gas receiving terminals in China and India. In short, Woodside, as a subsidiary of Shell, would be made to fit into Shell's global strategy. With Shell having competing interests in Malaysia, Brunei, Oman and, in particular, its 55 per cent interest in the new Sakhalin Island project, we cannot afford to assume that the interests of the North West Shelf and Australia's national interest would necessarily coincide with Shell's interest. Personally, I find it very hard to understand how anyone would believe that the Shell Group's management, sitting in The Hague and London, could be indifferent about which of Shell's projects win the next big LNG contract. Each of those projects would have different capital requirements and would offer different rates of return to supply a new LNG contract. Shell also have other governments, apart from our own, to placate. The government interest in Shell's Oman and Malaysia projects is around 50 per cent. That is how they look after their national interest. Our way is the national interest test.There was a report in one of the weekend papers saying that FIRB has prepared conditions for an approval of the Woodside takeover that include a 56 per cent limit on Shell's interest in Woodside, and a separate marketing organisation. That is little different from the current arrangements and Shell's original bid. Even then, according to the report, Shell are making a counter offer. In their offer document, Shell seek 60 per cent of Woodside—a majority of whatever size means control. A separate marketing organisation for North West Shelf gas, Australia LNG, already exists to sell LNG to markets outside Japan. It has been operating for two years, is yet to secure a contract and is run by a Shell secondee. It has been reported that Woodside, with Phillips, is close to bringing a new LNG customer to the Timor Sea project outside these arrangements. Whatever changes might be possible to ensure the independence of this marketing arrangement in the long term, Shell have told me that they will not even begin to negotiate these arrangements until approval has been given and the merger is complete. If the Treasurer ticks off a set of commercial arrangements as an adequate protection when they have not even been negotiated, we can assume the exercise for the government is political spin, not a serious effort to develop conditions that protect the national interest.Shell have told me that they will not countenance an independent operator because it would rip the core out of Woodside. There is considerable merit in that argument; but, in respect of the foreign investment application, that reduces the practical options to apply conditions that would be effective in limiting Shell's influence if the takeover proceeds. As I have been saying publicly for a month now, the national interest in the case of this application is that exploration and development on the North West Shelf not be impeded by the conflicting interests of Shell. If the Treasurer cannot devise conditions that he can publicly demonstrate protect that interest, or if Shell refuses to accept those conditions, then Shell should be told to withdraw their application to avoid rejection. Comments by US based arbitrage funds, which may have taken a position in Woodside because they saw an opportunity to make money on the takeover, should not move the Treasurer from his obligation under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act to protect Australia's national interest. A decision taken for good policy reasons and properly explained will be accepted by other investors. The only thing that can save the government from these difficult decisions is a white knight—preferably an Australian white knight—who does not have the conflicting interests that Shell have and is prepared to give the shareholders full value. (Time expired)2500222:36:0025002Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—Mr Speaker, I thought it may be of interest to you and to this House for me to report on the opening of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge yesterday, Sunday, 4 March. Members may be aware that Hindmarsh Island is in the electorate of Barker, which I have the honour of representing, and that the very sad and sorry saga of misrepresentation and ministerial ineptitude for over 10 years that is the story of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge has finally been overcome with the bridge's opening yesterday.To remind members of the history of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge in the short time that I have, it received all the necessary planning approvals through the local government and the state government, and there was extensive consultation with the local community and the local Aboriginal Ngarrindjeri tribe. However, a very small percentage of local people opposed the building of the bridge, which was to replace the existing, inadequate ferry service—a service which was often plagued by long queues waiting for over two hours to cross a stretch of water only a few hundred metres in width. The developers, Tom and Wendy Chapman, who were to help pay for the bridge, had made large investments for the future of Hindmarsh Island based on true and legal planning approvals.When every other legal process had failed the protesters, they turned to the then federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Robert Tickner, and asked him to use his powers in an unprecedented manner to override the state government planning rules—something which had never been done before and has not been done since. With regard to the concoction of the so-called `women's business', Minister Tickner did not even bother to read the contents of the report, thereby abrogating his responsibility as a minister, and he made a decision to ban the building of the bridge for 25 years. However, he did not count on the true grit of Tom and Wendy Chapman and their huge base of supporters, who believed justice had not been delivered. After much evidence was presented to the state government, a royal commission was instituted to inquire into the so-called women's business, and it clearly came up with the finding that it was concocted and a complete fabrication. Mr Speaker, as you would well know, a lot of this work was presented by my predecessor in Barker, the Hon. Ian McLachlan, who fought much prejudice and much political correctness in this chamber, and he was finally proved correct in his actions.There is no doubt that the complete fabrication of women's business had a negative effect on the reconciliation process in Australia. It was not helped by the reporting process of much of Australia's media, and particularly the reporting and comment from the ABC has left a lot to be desired. If the ABC is to retain some integrity and a reputation for independence and fair reporting, it should look at its biased and sloppy journalism for 10 years over the Hindmarsh Island affair, sloppy journalism which continues right up to this day. I had the pleasure of being at the opening of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge, and I met and spoke with hundreds of people who continue to be disgusted with the way the ABC has reported this matter. Even after the opening, it continues to push the line of the small number of people who support the fabrication of women's business, without once referring to those brave Ngarrindjeri women who debunked the fabrication. The ABC has always disparagingly referred to brave women like Dulcie Wilson and Dorothy Wilson and many others as `dissidents', as if they were on the wrong side, when the only side they were on was the side of truth. The ABC referred to there being only 3,000 people at the opening when the official figure was actually 7,000 to 8,000. It then referred to the protesters as being 100-strong when I doubt that there were more than 20, and it chose to report only what that small band of protesters had to say. It did not seem to matter that a local elder of the Ngarrindjeri tribe, Alan `Chirpy' Campbell, was roundly applauded for saying that finally truth had been the winner and that reconciliation was for all of us to work towards. I joined him and the Hon. Dean Brown, the local state member, Mayor Kim McHugh and thousands of others in a spontaneous reconciliation walk across the new Hindmarsh Island Bridge, yet the ABC chose not to comment on this great moment. What is wrong with the ABC? It does not seem to want to help the reconciliation process—in fact, on this issue it seems to be wanting to do the opposite. I also had the pleasure of meeting with several members of the Ngarrindjeri tribe who celebrated the victory of truth and justice over the lies and fabrication of a few unscrupulous individuals. (Time expired)2500322:41:0025003Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, you may recall that last Wednesday you chose to invoke standing order 304A. I thought I owed the House an explanation. My explanation is not to reflect on your judgment; I think that you were entirely correct. It was the first time that I have been suspended from the House in 16 years. I suspect that I gave your predecessors, Speaker Halverson and Speaker Sinclair, occasion to invoke the same standing order, but it was more by good luck than good management that it was not invoked. What caused my disorderly behaviour was the Minister for Transport and Regional Services answering a question on the deregulation of the dairy industry. I think that this is an issue both for rural and regional Australia as well as for metropolitan Australia, and I am happy to explain why.It is true to say that the deregulation of the dairy industry was a result not of competition policy but of the commitment by Premier Kennett that the Victorian dairy industry, the largest dairy industry in Australia, would be deregulated and subsequently, in a referendum conducted by the new government, farmers voted for deregulation. A package of assistance worth $1.7 billion was developed. Some $45 million of Commonwealth money is in that package—that is, less than 0.2 per cent is Commonwealth money. The package is funded by an 11c levy paid by everyone who purchases a litre of milk. So when my constituents in the suburbs of my electorate, the mums and dads, buy a litre of milk they are paying an 11c levy. For every dollar that is collected by that levy, between 23c and 32c goes straight back into consolidated revenue, because the assistance is taxed in the hands of the dairy farmers. The first point I make is that the biggest winner out of this package of assistance is the government. Between $350 million and $500 million goes to Prime Minister Howard or Treasurer Costello. I think that is a poor design. Secondly, I can argue in my electorate about the plight of the dairy farmers in New South Wales, and I think that my constituents would not be unhappy to think that they were contributing to an assistance package that helps dairy farmers in New South Wales—and indeed it does—but not all of the money that is collected in New South Wales goes to dairy farmers in New South Wales. In fact, a good proportion goes to Victoria, arguably the most efficient dairy state in the Commonwealth. I have great difficulty standing up to my constituents and saying, `Look, when you pay that 11c levy, part of it is going to Victoria.' The third point I would like to raise is this: this is not a targeted package. This does not go to those dairy farmers most in need. Indeed, wealthy dairy farmers who are in little need of assistance get thousands upon thousands of dollars. Yet up and down the south and north coasts of New South Wales there will be small dairy farmers who will be out of business. One of the saddest things I did was to travel up on holidays—and I am pleased I was able to take them there this year—to Queensland and say to my wife, `Look at those dairy farms. I doubt whether we'll see them survive.' Last but not least, the package is not about keeping dairy farmers in their community in some other endeavour; it is about parachuting dairy farmers out of the district. So there is a double loss—a loss of the dairy farm and a loss of the people. This is probably one of the worst designed assistance packages that any government has put together. VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McArthur—Premier Carr should help you.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—The honourable member knows that it was never part of the states putting money into the package. It was an agreement about whether or not there would be a package funded by an 11c levy. That is part of the deceit. That is what really gets me going. I say to the honourable member—(Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind the member for Corangamite of the opening remarks of the member for Chifley.2500422:46:0025004Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—On 29 April 1770, almost 231 years ago, Captain Cook first touched Australian soil on the Kurnell Peninsula in my electorate. Few people in Australia would argue with me that this was a significant moment in the modern history of our continent. Following his landing, Cook spent some days in Botany Bay, exploring the local area, taking detailed notes for his superiors in London and making first contact with the Dharawal people, which of course was also an important point in the history of black and white relations in Australia.Today, this important moment is commemorated by a white obelisk that stands on Inscription Point on the peninsula. Other than this and the surrounding beauty of the Botany Bay National Park, there is very little to suggest the significance of this site in our nation's history. Contrast this with a place like Plymouth Rock in the United States, a site that is so hallowed it prompted Alexis de Tocqueville to write, back in 1835:Here is a stone which the feet of a few outcasts pressed for an instant; and the stone becomes famous; it is treasured by a great nation; its very dust is shared as a relic.Kurnell and the 2,500 people of Kurnell village became the focus of considerable attention late last year when the area was mooted as a possible site for the extension of Sydney airport. I was very pleased to see the community of Kurnell come together as a united force very quickly to make it clear that this option was unacceptable. I was also pleased to see that my colleagues in cabinet responded to our lobbying and were very quick to completely take Kurnell off the airport agenda. A number of obvious points became clear to me during that time in December last year. In particular, it was clear that not enough was being done to recognise the unique historical and environmental significance this site has to our nation. It was for this reason that, together with a number of people from the council, including the mayor, Tracie Sonda, I have pushed for the promotion and improvement of the peninsula, and the landing site in particular, to ensure that its potential as a site of interest to Australians and overseas visitors and as an area of recreation for the public is realised. I would also like to briefly mention some of the points that came out during the public meeting and discussion during this time. The obvious interest in the site is, as I have alluded to, its position as the landing site of Captain Cook and the birthplace of modern Australia. This significance is augmented by the importance Cook's landing has in the history of indigenous-European relations. I believe any future development of the site must give full recognition to this fact and could trace the history of that relationship and the current reconciliation process. Indeed, symbolically the site could have a major role to play in achieving true reconciliation. Scenically as well, Kurnell is important to both Sydney and Australia. With a good deal of it already dedicated to Botany Bay National Park, and its proximity to the Royal National Park, Kurnell is characterised by striking sandstone cliffs, magnificent views of the Pacific Ocean and Botany Bay, attractive pine trees and thick native bushland. Not enough people know of these assets, and more must be made of them.Finally, Kurnell has great environmental assets which need to be preserved and promoted. There is a Ramsar site for migratory birds where over 200 different species of birds have been observed, particularly the migratory birds from Siberia and Japan. The site is situated within the Towra Point Nature Reserve, 280 hectares of vitally important wetland, mudflats and sand dunes. The area is a significant fish nursery and represents nearly half of all the remaining mangrove area in Sydney. All of this is just kilometres from the centre of Sydney, close to Sydney airport. With Sydney being the gateway to tourism in Australia, its significance is recognised. The Kurnell working group is made up of local representatives, and arrangements have been made to meet the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Both ministers have expressed their interest in our goals in discussions I have had with them this week. Senator Hill has already made mention of commencing some development of plans. I know the group is very much looking forward to meeting with the ministers. Certainly, in terms of the important heritage and environmental aspects of the Kurnell Peninsula, we look forward to developing future plans. 2500522:51:0025005Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—One of the most unflattering and inevitable legacies of the current Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs will be his reignition of the state aid debate. As were the preceding state aid debates in this country, it will be most unedifying. The minister for education has kicked dirt into the faces of the 70 per cent of Australian families who send their children to government schools. The minister has even conned the overwhelming majority of private schools, rewarding the already privileged schools representing just one per cent of the school population. Funding by the taxpayer of religion, race or ethnicity in the guise of education is highly questionable at any level. At the level the minister has provided for the most privileged families in Australia, it is highly divisive and dangerous. However, public education in Australia has proved to be a most hardy creature. Granted, it is terribly slow moving, difficult to coordinate and many of its practitioners suffer wrongly placed guilt over political action. But, as certain as night follows day, public education will fight back. At first the fight will be in any way it can, and it will not necessarily be a pretty sight or coordinated, but eventually public education will get its act together; it will fight back. But what a wholesale waste of energy, energy that could be so much more positively directed for children's benefit rather than political action. It did not have to be and it does not have to be. But the supporters of public education will have no choice: its funding base has been so seriously eroded for there to be any other way. The government's and in particular the minister's spin on so-called openness, choice, transparency and equity is nothing but that: spin and yet more spin.The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education) Assistance Act 2000 stinks. It reflects nothing but greed, greed and more greed. It is more in tune with those pathetic reality television shows such as Survivor, Temptation, TheWeakestLink and WhoWantsToBe A Millionaire? Rewarding the privileged at the expense of the struggling is just abysmal policy. Sane, sensible people would expect Commonwealth funding to schools, in an increasingly competitive and globalised economy, to be steadily increasing or, at the very minimum, remaining static with increased efficiencies being built in. Not so, I am afraid. Up until the mid-1990s government schools received the major share of Commonwealth funding—but not any more. In 1996 58 per cent of Commonwealth funding went to private schools. In 2004 it will be 67 per cent. But the situation is far worse than that for all schools, public and private. Let us not forget that private schools are being harmed by this as well. The only real measure of education expenditure, the percentage of GDP spent on schools, has been falling dramatically. In 1983-84, 3.3 per cent of Australia's GDP was spent on schools. By 1997-98 that figure had fallen to 2.6 per cent; that is, $5 billion less funding in real terms than was available in 1983. That is a lot of money. That in those circumstances a federal minister for education would, from a smaller base of money for schools, shift significant increases to the most privileged schools in Australia is nothing short of criminal. Basically, this government wants to shift the significant costs of schooling on to parents. The propaganda—that increased funding to already privileged schools would enable parents on average incomes to access choice, which was never a reality—was killed, within days of the bill passing, by the privileged schools themselves increasing their fees despite the government windfall.To alienate the votes of 70 per cent of the population to satisfy in theory 30 per cent—but in reality one per cent—is an incredible political strategy. To ignore economic fundamentalism to assist the most privileged in Australia is also a remarkable political strategy. But more embarrassing and awkward than all of that is the deafening silence and the unwillingness to make public statements by so many so-called leaders in this country who so often want to lecture the population on moral issues, such as the increasing rich-poor divide and greed, but are revealed on these matters as nothing more than very less than ordinary individuals content with just their own hypocritical self-interest. But, as so many of them are wont to say to other people over and over again, there will be a judgment day. Bring it on! (Time expired)2500622:56:0025006Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise tonight to speak in support of Mornington Peninsula Youth Enterprises Inc., which is a not-for-profit organisation operating out of Mornington in the south of the electorate of Dunkley. This organisation is entirely driven by volunteers working through innovative programs to deal with some juvenile problems that we experience in our community, such as unemployment, substance abuse issues, self-harm intentions, antisocial behaviour or just simply a disconnection of these young people from the broader community and the employment and educational opportunities available to them. Through the Mornington Peninsula Youth Enterprises service, these young people are given the opportunity to develop some skills in the horticultural area, in woodworking, in welding and in other areas—office administration, vegetable growing, some craftwork, lead lighting and the like—with the support of volunteers, not only to help them to deal with their self-esteem and personal development but also to assist them either into the work force or back into education.The terrific success story about Mornington Peninsula Youth Enterprises is that, as I mentioned earlier, it is an entirely voluntary organisation. There are a number of volunteers, impeccably led by Russell Ardley, who is a fully committed individual that manages this project with the assistance of between 10 and 12 volunteers that between them contribute 86 hours per week on top of the full-time contribution of Russell. That contribution alone is worth in the order of $350,000 a year to our community. They operate out of a site in Pine Avenue which is the former Mornington shire depot site and the former Mornington Water and Wastewater Authority site. The site is heavily encumbered with Mornington Water and Wastewater Authority assets, many of which are redundant. But these provide the perfect infrastructure for the growing of seedlings and, in turn, give an opportunity for many of these young people who have lost their way a little bit to work in a team environment and, with the support of Russell and a number of other trainers, to find their way back into the work force, to be job ready or to be prepared to apply themselves again in education. The sewerage and water infrastructure items heavily encumber the site, and a number of us are concerned that South-East Water have in their plans the sale of the site. It is certainly recognised that the site is surplus to the requirements of South-East Water, but it is crucially significant to the local community I represent. A number of us have been in discussions with South-East Water about what we might be able to do not only to secure the site for Mornington Peninsula Youth Enterprises—and ensure that these gains are available to our community, in particular our most at-risk young people—but also to make this site available so it can continue to support other community projects such as Greencorps and Work for the Dole programs, a number of community correction programs operated by the state government and, in addition to those, some human services programs for child protection types of activities.I have put to South-East Water that, given the heavy encumbrance on the site, aspirations of securing about $2 million for its sale are somewhat overstated. Much to my surprise, I have identified that there is a condition on the lease of the site entered into by the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council that requires the council to remove all of these assets and redundant infrastructure prior to the site being resumed by South-East Water and then put on the market. You can imagine the extent to which that $300,000-odd investment is an impediment in the sale, and I encourage all parties to work together to find a way of acquiring the site for the community. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:0025007House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices25007The following notice was given:QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—to present a bill for an act relating to the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Australians and all people in Australia, and for related purposes.2001-03-05—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 4.30 p.m.Bills25008R1193BillsR1191BillsR1192Bills25008Debate resumed from 28 February, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Tanner moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns this Government for its:(1) failure to address the significant investment needs in the areas of education and health and the provision of social and employment services since coming to Government;(2) blowout in the cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the threat this presents to the sustainability of Australia's subsidised medicines scheme; (3) belated and inadequate attempts to remedy the chronic underfunding of research and innovation; (4) mismanagement of the Defence Budget;(5) refusal to remove the effects of the sale of the rest of Telstra from the Budget aggregates consistent with the resolution of the Senate of 16 March 2000, the findings of the Besley report and the wishes of the leader of the National Party;(6) mishandling of the move to accrual accounting by providing complex, confusing and uninformative budget documents;(7) wasteful and profligate spending on poor quality programs to buy Democrat support for its unfair GST;(8) failure to identify in the Budget papers the full cost of GST collection and implementation; (9) failure to put in place arrangements that deliver its guarantee that no Australian will be worse off as a result of the GST package; and(10) bungling of the Business Activity Statement which has sent many small businesses to the wall”.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before debate is resumed on this bill, I advise the Main Committee that the House has agreed that a general debate be allowed covering Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2000-01, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2000-01 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2000-01. 16:30:0025008Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2000-2001 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2000-2001 include additional funding in areas such as defence, health and aged care, immigration and the ABC, amongst others. Today I would like to address some issues of concern to me and my constituents, starting with the area of aged care. I understand that part of the appropriation relates to the support of healthy ageing for older Australians, and quality and cost-effective care for frail older people and support for their carers. I refer to an article in the Canberra Times of last year announcing 126 new places for the ACT. That announcement was made by the Minister for Aged Care, which was Mrs Bronwyn Bishop at the time. The article appeared just after the budget. It spoke in fairly glowing terms of the fact that the ACT was going to receive more than 100 new aged care places, with 126 new places in all. The ACT community got a bit excited about this because the reality is that, even though we have what people would regard as a relatively young community here in age terms, we do have a growing proportion of older folk. It is becoming increasingly difficult for people requiring assistance in their ageing years to gain that assistance when it is required, so I was particularly pleased when I saw that article. Then, in January this year, there was a further announcement by Minister Bishop. At first I thought that was an additional grant of places, as did many others. In actual fact, it was announcing the decision on how those 126 new places would be allocated. So our second attack of excitement at getting new places abated somewhat when we realised that it was referring to the previous announcement. However, from that announcement we learnt that the ACT had received 78 new residential aged care places and 48 community aged care places, or CAPs packages as they are commonly known.Again, this may sound terrific for the local community—and on the surface it is something you would never knock back and would welcome warmly—however, I again refer to the fact that, despite these announcements, I am constantly confronted by folk in the community who have enormous concerns about how they can possibly cater for the needs of their older relatives when that need arises. One comment that has constantly been made to me—and I think it is a reasonable one—is that the ACT community is a little different from other communities around Australia in the sense that most of us have come from elsewhere. It is always a joy to meet someone who was actually born in the ACT because they are in the minority.That leads to many questions. Many people come here having left their families in other parts of this country to set up their families and work in the ACT. That was more the case a few years ago than it is now, but it still occurs. So there is an influx of older folk needing help when they get to the point where they need to join their younger family members. In other words, they migrate into the ACT at a time when they need to be near their families. I am one of them, as my mother migrated, for want of a better term, from another part of the country when she needed to be near younger members of her family when she needed special care.The question is whether or not that itinerancy or migration is included in the formula that is required to be worked out for the allocation of aged care places. My understanding is that, when you look at per capita head of population, there is no consideration in the formula for exactly how many places there need to be. One thing we have to start to address immediately is the need to recognise the additional numbers of folk who come to Canberra from elsewhere, including the immediate region, to receive aged care accommodation or aged care assistance.The situation here is far from satisfactory and probably reflects the situation in many other parts of the country. The demand for those CAPS packages is extremely high compared to the number available. The CAPS package process is probably a good one; it offers people an alternative to going into an aged care facility. It means that if they are able to, their circumstances suit and they wish to do so, they can live in the hope of getting assistance at home and staying in their own home for longer than would normally be the case.However, it is only good if you can get it. My constituents tell me that a number of people, after having waited for allocation of a CAPS package, pass away. More unfortunately, a great number of them have progressed to a point where, by the time it is available, the CAPS package is of no use to them—they have reached a point where their needs are much greater. In many cases, they then go through the process of attempting to find a bed in an aged care facility. It becomes a whole new ball game.The hostel-level type need—to use the old terminology—is putting pressure on our lists. It is pretty heavy, but it is not as bad as the nursing home or higher level of need where, again, there is a very high level of demand in comparison to the number of places available. I am thinking of the number of families who walk through my door, pleading with me to do something to help them get a place for their elderly relative quicker than they can. I want to thank the government for their 126 places—78 of them are beds and 48 are CAPS packages. We would never turn one of them down. But I really want the government to think very carefully about where their process in aged care has now got them. There has been an enormous withdrawal of funds, in historical terms since 1996, and the demand is now very great. I have a case on my hands right now of a 92-year-old and an 89-year-old who have been married for 62 years. The husband is in hospital and the hospital desperately wants to get rid of him. He has to get into aged care accommodation. The hospital is counting the dollars, his family is feeling pressured and the CAP team are doing their best to try to find him a place. In the meantime, his wife of 62 years, who is virtually blind and deaf, is under the care of her family. They are trying so hard to look after her, care for him in the hospital and find him a place. It is all too hard.This is a time when families do not need this pressure; this is when a place ought to be available. I am not saying that naively— I understand how difficult it will be to balance supply when it is required with the stream of that supply through a period of time. I understand all of that. But government, whoever they are, must understand the other end of the process, that is, that waiting lists mean nothing. You can have your name on it forever, but what really matters is that as soon as there is a need for a bed, a facility or the CAPS package it is met. It is not needed in three or six months time. It is a difficult process, but we should be clever enough to do it much better than we are currently doing it.The strain on the family and friends of these people—let alone them—is huge. If we ever want to make old people feel rough about themselves and feel that they are becoming a burden, this is a wonderful way of doing it. They know that they are also making it difficult for their families. It is not intended, but it is very easy for them to see it that way. We have got to do something as a matter of urgency to try to ease the burden on these people and their families.In finishing this particular part of my talk today, I point out that the strain on the staff and the facilities in these places is also pretty huge. I know from my own experience that when you deal with these folk they are terrific. They do everything they can to help the families concerned but at the end of the day they have to deal with the realities in which they find themselves as well. Another area that these appropriation bills cover is the lawful and orderly entry and stay of people—in other words, an area of the immigration department. I have to say again, and it is an understatement, that I am a little bit disappointed with the way the government tends to sometimes categorise folk. I would like to refer quickly to two or three immigration cases today that are outstanding. They stand out so strongly to me that it is very easy to disbelieve that they have actually occurred. Yet, because the people concerned happen to come from a part of the world where the government processes would like to think that they have a high risk of overstaying, the circumstances become secondary; the circumstances in fact almost do not matter. What matters is that for some reason the government believes that this part of the world is high risk. `No, no, no,' is what we are going to say to these people. Circumstances sometimes really require better attention than that. For instance, there was a family that I was dealing with 18 months or more back. It needs to be talked about. It concerns a husband, a wife, and three children—seven, three and two years of age. The problem was that the father of the family had kidney failure. The mother of the family very luckily was able and willing to donate one of her kidneys. That meant that he would have a prolonged period in hospital but she would possibly have a longer one, at least in the immediate recovery phase. I understand that removing a kidney is almost as rough as getting one. This family was going to be in fairly straitened circumstances. There were two relatives from their home country who desperately wanted, at the request of the family, to come out and help them through this period. The three children all spoke their native language, and only the eldest, at seven, was learning English. They had a cultural problem. We tried to find foster care for them but foster care was going to be nigh on impossible because of the language requirements, the period of time required and the fact that we wanted to try and place these three little people together. That was tried. In the end, we had evidence from social workers, medical people and everybody you could possibly name. I found myself in this amazing position of writing a letter to an immigration official. The gentleman had come to Australia as an ordinary migrant 10 years earlier. He had become a citizen in 1993. He was employed here at one of our institutions in Canberra and his wife had arrived three years ago. She and the three children were also citizens. The relatives were applying to come to care for them. They had never applied to come here before. Their sole reason was to care for the brother and his family in this situation. They were going to leave their families and children at home. But we kept getting no for an answer. I wrote this letter and found myself saying, `I therefore earnestly beg you.' The minister said at the time—I heard indirectly, not directly from the minister—that there was an approach where members of parliament can give a personal guarantee of some kind. I find that an affront because I do not think that it is my job to do that; my job is to present the circumstances and hopefully have a minister who hears them fairly. I have to say that in the end, the minister, after I personally approached him in the chamber, allowed one of the relatives to come. But it took us months. The family were in terrible stress, and the medical authorities attached to this case still shake their heads when I see them, not being able to believe what had happened in an attempt to try and get some compassionate view of the family.The other case I want to mention is that of a gentleman and his family here. He was an only child and he had aged parents. They applied and were approved in the aged parent category. But there was a cap on how many people can come in that category per year. We attempted to find out, even roughly, where they were on the list. Were they going to wait one year or five years? We asked the reasonable question, `In their circumstances, how long does their medical and other check last before they have to go through them again?' A lot of emphasis has been placed on making sure these people are relatively healthy—for want of a better term. We could not get answers to any of those questions and, while we were fighting to get them over many months, one of the parents died.It is distressing, as a member of parliament, to be made to feel pretty impotent when you go out to the shops on a Saturday morning and run into this poor gentleman, who says, `Don't worry, Ms Ellis, mum is dead; and dad is thinking about it now.' I thought, `Well, they came from the wrong part of the world, where figures were more important than people.' The minister can boast of achieving high levels of financial benefit from migrants and so on but, at the end of the day, what does any of that really matter if the families that are already here and who are making a really good contribution to this country are treated in the way that they are? It is rough that they have that feeling put upon them.I am currently involved in a debate over another case with a different family. One of their three children has a very debilitating and probably terminal illness, and they have cultural reasons for wanting one of their family members to come and help deal with the child's needs. This little one is in a special wheelchair and she cannot communicate. Because we have been knocked back so many times, we are now walking the family through the Migration Review Tribunal process, at great cost to them, but they feel that they have no option but to pursue that track. Appropriations are made, money is spent and consideration is given to these policies—members on the other side of the political spectrum can have different views to me and I am quite happy about that—but when are we going to resume some form of humanity and start to look at people in terms of who and what they are, rather than as numbers and figures and at where they have come from, and putting them all in the one box so as not to worry about it.This last point I make is in relation to the ABC. What a sorry tale this has been. These bills also cover some funding to the ABC, I understand, and it is appropriate that we talk about it quickly. We have sold off the Radio Australia transmitter and we have closed the science unit—or it is under threat.Government members interjecting—5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS—I object to being called a liar, but I will keep going. We have a whole heap of new executives costing goodness knows what, a CEO who declares his belief in the ABC and its charter; yet I do not know what he is talking about because he has failed to convince me, let alone anybody else, that he intends to do anything other than continue down the path he is going down. I was very grateful to receive a publication recently from the ABC which outlined their production and broadcast programs for the year. I looked at that with great interest because unfortunately, while some of the programs that are coming up are terribly exciting, the Australian produced content is not in the majority. That is a bit sad. I confess that I do not mind some of the old BBC shows, as I think they are quite funny, but the problem is that that is what they are: old. When we think about the creative thought behind the purchase of the British youth music show, Top of the Pops, which I understand is the substitute for the award winning, and now discontinued, Australian programs such as Recovery and the 10.30 Slot—both of which promoted new and emerging Australian musicians—we really have to think pretty seriously about what is happening to the ABC, and to the artistic and cultural development in this country. I think also of those people who got a start in their careers and therefore enriched our lives through any connection, distinct or close, with the ABC. When, along with 8,000 to 10,000 other Canberrans, I participated in a demonstration a few weeks ago in Canberra the feeling was unbelievably strong. Without any risk of misrepresenting the community at that march, right across the spectrum, as far as you could see, the community was there: from grandparents to little people, from blue-collar workers to professionals. They feel very strongly about children's programs, science programs, drama, the production of music and the promotion of young musicians, and of the arts and culture generally, let alone community affairs, news and sport. We own such a rich asset in the ABC and we need to do more to make sure that we stop absolutely any more denigration of it and that we work to promote it. If it was not for the ABC, many years ago my dad would not have sat up until four or five in the morning listening to Bradman from Britain—just to give it a current thing—and I think that we need to remember that and preserve it all as much as we possibly can.16:50:0025012Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—When you look at the amendment to this very responsible legislation, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2000-2001, it clearly shows that the Labor Party are an opposition for opposition's sake. A whole series of 10 political statements does not really address the very responsible legislation that is there in the appropriation bills. Their amendment really is the work of a policy lazy opposition, which is a common trait found among Labor Party members. Perhaps it arises from the guilt of having plunged Australia into the recession we had to have, the guilt of imposing on Australia's battlers home interest rates of 17 per cent and on small business interest rates of 22 per cent or higher, or the guilt of their penchant for raising taxes on a whim. With those failures on their conscience it is no wonder they can never find the guts to support this government's initiatives or propose any of their own. Although devoid of so much policy, Labor have given some insight into things that they would do if they were in government. For instance, they would roll back the tax system even though the Yellow Pages Small Business Survey has found that almost two-thirds of small business people are opposed to any roll back of the GST. They would axe Work for the Dole, which is getting so many of our young people off the streets and back into work. They would axe the coalition's 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance, even though they do support it. That particular initiative is making private health cover much more affordable for Australians. They would axe youth wages in Australian workplace agreements, meaning the sacking of hundreds of thousands of young people who are dependent on youth wages as a means of income, particularly while they are at school or university.Labor would have to do all this to fund their plan to increase the bureaucratic processes and to fund their many inquiries and talkfests, because that seems to be their solution to everything. We had that just recently with dairy deregulation. The way you solve any difficulties the dairy farmers are having is to have a talkfest. All the talkfests under the sun do not help the farmers. All the talking has been done. But with the Labor Party whenever there is a problem you have a talkfest and that seems to solve it all. They are quite devoid of any practical solutions at all.Being a very positive person and immensely proud of my electorate of Eden-Monaro in south-east New South Wales, today I want to highlight some of the many developments put in place by this federal government, developments which are making life more prosperous for residents in my electorate, developments which would not have occurred under the policy black hole of the Labor Party. Late last year the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, Bruce Scott, and I officially opened the Cooma Defence Service Centre, which stands to benefit not only Defence Force employees but also the people of the wider Cooma-Monaro region. This $30 million development was something I fought very hard for, with the assistance of the Cooma-Monaro Shire Council and the Cooma call centre committee made up of council and local private sector representatives. I was therefore delighted when our combined efforts paid off and this government affirmed its commitment to regional Australia and to the Cooma region by showing that it knows rural and regional communities have the ability to cater for such large-scale operations.This is a state-of-the-art call centre where highly skilled staff will deliver quality administrative services for all Defence personnel. It is expected to service as many as 100,000 clients in the Defence Force. The opening was a great day, a very positive day for the region. The centre has already seen the creation of nearly 100 jobs. However, when fully operational, probably later this year, the centre will employ up to 150 staff in Cooma who will be supported by processing staff and case managers located around Australia.As well as the jobs created directly at the centre, businesses from the Monaro region have benefited from the design, construction and fit-out; and businesses in the area will continue to benefit as wages in the range of $3.5 million to $4 million circulate throughout the community. At the opening I met not only locals who were employees but also many who had moved into the region, and a number who had decided to live in outlying areas such as Jindabyne, Berridale and Nimmitabel—and that is great news for those villages. Since the announcement that the Defence Service Centre was to be located in Cooma, I have certainly noticed an increase in optimism in the region. Things are buzzing along, and we now see a whole new industry for the region to complement the traditional industries of wool, beef, tourism and the snowy scheme. Moving up in the electorate to Queanbeyan, in November last year I congratulated the Queanbeyan company Electro Optic Systems on being awarded federal government funding of $2.8 million under the R&D Start Program to help with research and development for its innovative space tracking project. Since its foundation in 1983, Electro Optic Systems has developed world-class satellite laser ranging and tracking systems, as well as laser based sighting and surveillance systems. It has marketed successfully to the US, Germany, Saudi Arabia and Japan, with NASA one of its better known clients. It leads the market in highly accurate space tracking systems, and over the past decade has developed most of the technology to build space debris tracking systems—all this happening in Queanbeyan, just across the border from here.Electro Optic Systems employs 66 full-time staff in Australia and the United States, and has extensive state-of-the-art facilities in both countries for producing key systems for its present and future markets. The company's new tracking system will provide information to the space industry for avoiding collisions between satellites and spacecraft. The project, when completed, will be able to detect objects in space as small as one centimetre. Current technology can track only about 10 per cent of space debris larger than 10 centimetres. It will have a special application for monitoring the thousands of bits of space debris and space junk from disused satellites and spent rockets.Space debris is abandoned material in orbit around the earth which has no useful purpose. According to NASA and US Space Command, there are presently about 130,000 debris objects large enough to disable and fragment a satellite or spacecraft on collision, and there are an estimated 30 million objects large enough to cause damage. When this project is completed, there will be a comprehensive information service on all hazardous space objects, which will be available to space agencies, government organisations, aerospace companies, satellite proprietors, launch agencies and military groups.The federal government's R&D Start Program is a competitive merit based program which supports business to undertake research and development and related activities. Through this we have provided funding worth $400 million to more than 500 companies. Support for R&D is a key element of the federal government's commitment to providing increased economic and employment opportunities throughout all areas of Australia. By taking advantage of this support measure offered by the federal government, Electro Optic Systems is certainly leading the way in research and development. It joins the other dynamic and forward looking businesses that have benefited from this scheme. I am proud to say that Electro Optic Systems is Queanbeyan born and bred, and really is proof of the fact that you do not have to be big city based to be a big success.Moving on, I listened to the member for Canberra before on aged care. She should check some of her facts and go back in history: she would find that a couple of things that she said were quite incorrect. In particular she should be looking back at the late eighties and early nineties, when the needs in respect of aged care were totally ignored by the previous Labor government. It got the Gregory report, an excellent report which highlighted all the problems. Yet the government of the day totally ignored that report and we had to pick up the pieces. We are doing a magnificent job in trying to pick up those pieces, although it is tough. In respect of that, residential facilities in Eden-Monaro received a massive increase in aged care places in the most recent round. Community care packages and residential care grants were provided in the latest aged care approvals round in January, which by the way was the largest aged care approvals round ever, delivering more than 14,000 new residential aged care places and community aged care packages worth $156 million a year and over $44 million worth of capital grants. All up, an extra 388 new places will be funded across Eden-Monaro, plus $1.815 million in grants will be allocated. Our aged care facilities, particularly along the Eurobodalla and Bega Valley coast, are in demand. I am pleased that the minister, Mrs Bronwyn Bishop, has recognised this. In particular, Maranatha Lodge in Batehaven was pleased to hear of an extra 60 low care residential places. Bega and District Nursing Home was delighted to hear of a residential care grant of $400,000 and a community care package of $10,000 plus 10 new places, while a new facility, Dalmeny Lodge, will cater for the needs of the region with 30 high and 50 low care residential places.In response to the news, the supervisor of Currawarna Lodge in Bombala, Karen Brownlie, said:Naturally we are all thrilled by this news ... While the 30 other rooms within the hostel have already been funded to provide a high level of care, it is wonderful to have the remaining 10 upgraded.Chris Batten, the acting manager of Yallambee Lodge in Cooma, said the grants were `Very, very good news.' Ian Wilson, chief executive officer of Kawaree Lodge in Queanbeyan, said:This funding will allow people of all financial solutions to benefit from the high standard of care Kawaree provides. This will put us on equal ground with other charitable, aged care providers within Queanbeyan and the ACT.And Tim Gerrard, manager of Maranatha Lodge, said:The result has been a very positive outcome for Maranatha Lodge and the older residents of the Eurobodalla Shire.These are just some examples of the comments made about those aged care places.As endorsed by others, this increase in funds and care places puts aged care facilities in Eden-Monaro in a very good position to meet the needs of our ageing population. Putting basic essential services into areas that have never had them before and breaching the traditional city-rural divide is something that I have particularly focused on. Why shouldn't people in rural and regional areas have the same access to services that those in the big cities do?With the federal government's rural transaction centre program, the communities of towns in my electorate like Bermagui and Braidwood have worked in conjunction with the government to put in place services that they have never had before—not to put services back but to actually put in services that they have never had before. No governments before have provided these services.The Tallaganda Shire Council has been awarded $326,838 to set up an RTC in Braidwood. At this centre it is anticipated the following services will be provided: personal and business banking services through Westpac Bank; Centrelink rural outreach office; Medicare Easyclaim; council services; and a range of personal student and business support services. The Bermagui RTC, for which the Bega Valley Shire Council has been awarded $176,000, will provide improved access to Centrelink, state government authorities, Job Network and secretarial and business services.There is also a raft of other communities across Eden-Monaro that have received funding to develop business plans to assess the viability of an RTC. The Monaro communities are the latest to come on board at the assessment stage with funding of $71,600 going to the Cooma-Monaro Technology Centre to identify the services required by the Monaro communities and to assess the feasibility of establishing RTCs.And while I am in the vein of this coalition federal government putting new services into regional areas, I might comment on the announcement last week that Vodafone have been selected as the preferred tenderer to provide continuous mobile phone coverage along the Princes Highway and 10 other major Australian highways under the $25 million Mobiles on Highways initiative—an initiative that has come out of the part sale of Telstra. The lack of mobile phone coverage in many areas of Eden-Monaro is an issue I have continually put to my federal colleagues and to Telstra. As someone who spends many hours driving on the roads in my electorate, particularly on the Princes Highway, I share with the rest of the constituents in Eden-Monaro the frustration of the situation of limited mobile phone coverage.This tender will deliver a substantial increase in mobile phone coverage.Vodafone will provide continuous mobile phone coverage using GSM technology and, importantly for customers of GSM networks, Vodafone's offer includes roaming-to-base stations. This means the estimated 9.8 million GSM mobile phone users now have the prospect of continuous coverage. As promised in my discussions with the general manager of Vodafone last week, all of this will be done by about the middle of next year.For all the local residents and visitors who rely on their mobile phones when travelling and for many people living near the Princes Highway, increased coverage will assist them in their commercial activities and personal contacts. This will be especially welcomed by people like me who often work from their car and have in the past suffered from the lack of coverage—people such as tradesmen, truck drivers and sales representatives. This announcement will have a flow-on effect to the local economy through employment and expenditure and will provide a longer-term boost through improved regional telecommunications infrastructures. This decision is likely to encourage Telstra to complete its regional CDMA network so as to compete more effectively with Vodafone. The party of opposition for opposition's sake, the Labor Party, voted against this initiative and against the coalition government's extension of mobile phone coverage to places such as Bungendore, Braidwood, Bombala and Narooma that have all received mobile phone coverage in recent years. That coverage was not there when I came into parliament. In fact, if it were up to the Labor Party, rural Australia would have very little mobile phone coverage at all. It was the former Labor government that forced the closure of the analog mobile network from 1 January 2000. Without the coalition government working with Telstra, Vodafone and Optus towards a commitment to provide CDMA, this would have left regional Australia in the dark, as the alternative digital mobile network has in the past mainly suited cities and towns.While talking about Telstra, if I could put in a quick plug and say thank you to them. About 10 days ago I got an urgent call from the Dalgety show, which was on yesterday in my electorate, saying that they had encouraged Ian McNamara to run Australia All Over out of the Dalgety show yesterday morning but that he needed four phone lines into that showground to be able to do it. David Gunsberg from Telstra Countrywide was on the job very quickly. It was terrific that they were able to do that last week. The phones were there yesterday morning. We had a great show and a great program given by Ian McNamara. It was terrific publicity for the Monaro.Some of the other major developments I have worked for and won in Eden-Monaro over the last few years and that have been part of our appropriations in years gone by include the extension of SBS television transmission—another benefit out of the partial sale of Telstra—to residents along the coast from Bateman's Bay right down to Eden. Under the old Labor plan they would not have received SBS for probably another five years. That money would not have been available. But with the partial sale and money going into that, the SBS transmission is now up and running. It was all turned on in January this year. Another development is the $3.6 million Eden region adjustment package which, with like contributions from the proponents, is supporting around $10 million of new job creating investments in the Eden and Bombala regions. The $40 million Twofold Bay naval ammunitioning depot and multipurpose wharf will also boost the growth of Eden and the region. Then there is the federal government funding to help with the expansion of Bega Cheese. Over $660,000 has already been committed for a new shredded cheese processing line. I expect more federal funding will be allocated to Bega Cheese Co-op in light of their forthcoming further expansion, which will see their employment grow to around 500. It was about 80 just 10 years ago, which is quite an incredible increase from a company that is taking the world by storm with a great product.I am very proud of my electorate, proud that its people are go-getters and are achieving great things. I am glad to be there to help maximise how far their ideas and ventures go by maximising the help that they get from the coalition government. The party of opposition for opposition's sake, the Labor Party, seems to be decidedly better at opposition than at government, as proven by the disastrous time of rule in the 1980s and 1990s. They are so good at opposition; they are not capable of anything else.17:09:0025017Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I want to take the opportunity of speaking on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2000-2001 to talk about a number of issues that are very close to my heart, and the two main issues are jobs and regions. In talking about these two issues, I want to assess the priorities and the performance of this current government and focus on some of the local work that I have done in these areas. No member in this House would be surprised about my choosing to speak about jobs. The inner western urban seat of Gellibrand that I represent is still, unfortunately, a seat that has a very high unemployment rate. A number of areas within my electorate have an unemployment rate of above 12 per cent. That is nearly double—in fact, in some areas it is double—the Victorian average, so it is a matter of great concern to me.Others might ask why I have a particular interest in regions. It goes back much further and deeper than the current shemozzle that we see the government in—in panic mode over regional Australia. Since being elected to this House, I have spoken a number of times on my strongly held view that `rural and regional Australia' is a term that is much misused by many people in this House and elsewhere. Rural Australia may be one thing but regional Australia is actually something quite different. In my view, regional Australia also encompasses those great regional towns and cities like Broken Hill, Ballarat and Traralgon. These are bustling, cosmopolitan working cities. They have smart and savvy people, as do many of the rural areas, but the people in these regional cities regard themselves as having quite different interests from rural and country people and also from the agricultural interests that are so often grouped with them. I hold a view that, most importantly for my electorate, regions can also exist in metropolitan areas. I think that there is a distinct western region of metropolitan Melbourne, and part of that is represented in my electorate. Anyone who has grown up in Melbourne would know that there is a huge psychological barrier to crossing the Westgate Bridge and that the south-eastern suburbs, the CBD and the more affluent eastern suburbs are really quite different in terms of need, industrial structure, work force and residential areas. What makes a region, in my view, is the community of interest, the geography, the needs of the people and the make-up of the communities. It was this long-held view of mine, and also the very passionate advocacy on behalf of his region, that led me and my friend the member for McMillan, Mr Zahra, to undertake a political first in January this year. We undertook what we regarded as a fairly important political experiment where we swapped, in January for one week, our two electorates. I was the member for McMillan for a week and he was the member for Gellibrand. The aim was to give us an opportunity to compare and contrast our two different regions. We already knew that there were going to be many more similarities between our electorates than many people credited the areas with, but it was very important for us to actually look into that in an in-depth way. We prepared very detailed programs for each other so that we were able to compare and contrast properly the needs and interests of our areas. We found that we have in common a large number of problems in our areas, but we also have some quite different and creative solutions being suggested by our communities and community organisations. It was great for us to get beyond the political cliché of the moment of country versus city, or regional versus urban. We were able to identify something that the Labor Party has always stood for and feels very strongly about: that we need to design policies that will actually accommodate people in need, wherever it is that they happen to live, be it country, city, remote, regional city, inner urban, et cetera.It was an experiment that was very rewarding and it was something that made us ask ourselves why it is, in the current environment, that in a coalition government which includes a party that describes itself as representing country areas, they obviously have not been able to educate their city members to the extent that even in a week—which is really a very short time—we were able to increase our understanding of the different needs of each other's areas and why it is that this government have led themselves into such a debacle at the moment. One of the very important things that we did learn from this is that both of our areas have a great need for investment in our regions. We both see that the creation of jobs in our areas is going to be of key importance to the ongoing viability and happiness of our communities. We called, at the end of the week, for the state and federal governments, but particularly the state government, to consider sponsoring regional investment tours that would give investors an opportunity to actually get outside their comfort zone of the CBD and travel out to regional areas. I have to say that getting those investors in the CBD to travel across the Westgate Bridge is just as difficult as getting them to travel along the Princes Highway. We should get them to look at the investment opportunities and work with the WREDO in my area—the Western Region Economic Development Organisation—and Gippsland Development in the member for McMillan's area, the local councils and other organisations to help identify the good investment opportunities and give investors the opportunity to see five or 10 businesses all in one day. It is worth their while, because they actually have that already prepared for them, they can do it in a short time and they can get a good taste of the needs, particular assets and advantages of certain regional areas. I am very pleased to be able to say that this initiative has been taken up by the Bracks government and that they are looking at piloting this proposal in two regions. They may or may not be the regions that the member for McMillan and I represent, but we are very pleased that the initiative that we put forward as a result of our exchange has been picked up. We think it has some real potential in being able to identify and develop jobs in regions. We know that is something that is very important for all of those people. I feel very strongly that, as a local member of parliament, we do have an opportunity to be able to assist in creating employment, in linking investors with local businesses and ensuring that our local businesses have sufficient support in order that they can grow and employ more people in the region. Sometimes it is a very slow and hard slog to be able to do it, and other times it seems we have great successes. Since being elected, I have undertaken a number of initiatives that I think have had a positive impact on employment and, hopefully, will have a lasting impact in the future. One of them was the production, with Victoria University and their graphic arts students, of a local map of our region, highlighting all of the cultural, recreational and educational facilities in the area. It was aimed at promoting our region and the things that we have to offer and encouraging people to spend some of their recreational time in the area, as well as attracting others from Melbourne and other suburbs to the region. We knew that this in itself would create some extra business, especially in our retail and tourism sectors. At the same time, it was also an opportunity to showcase the skills of these graphic design students.I was very pleased the other day to visit one of my local businesses which had attended the launch of the map at the time that we chose the winner and had looked at all of the students' designs that were on display that evening. Some months later when I visited—and I had not been told this before—the owner of this business, Playworks International, said to me, `I am very sorry that this particular employee'—whom I will not name here—`is not here today because I am sure that you would have wanted to talk to him.' I said, `I am happy to talk to all your employees, but who is this particular person?' He said, `Oh, he's the student that we employed after coming to your map launch a couple of months ago. We liked his design work.' He was not the winning student, but they were particularly after this style. He has now been employed for nine weeks and is about to be made full-time as their second graphic designer at this company. Although it is a very small thing to have had one person employed, I do take some personal satisfaction out of having achieved that. I can only wish that that can be multiplied many times over to assist the employment growth in our area and make sure that the young people that are getting good skills when they are being educated through our regional university—Victoria University—do have the opportunity to go into paid employment.We have also done a fair bit of work in encouraging our businesses to get into e-commerce and have run some seminars with Austrade. This has been very successful. Two weeks ago I launched a pamphlet which my office has created. The title, which may be a little cheeky, reads, `Need more money or assistance for your business?' What this pamphlet is about is providing a bit of a reference tool to local businesses that are seeking venture capital or assistance and advice—for instance, where can they go to get advice, who can provide venture capital, who do they need to talk to to get that advice? We found, from talking to businesses, that the most confusing and frustrating thing for small to medium size enterprises is that they waste so much time trying to find the right people to talk to.Whilst this brochure is a fairly simple tool, I hope that it will save businesses a lot of time by being able to look things up quickly and find out what initiatives the federal government and the state government are offering, what assistance regional organisations like WREDO and the private investors like venture capitalists can provide, and who they can talk to about different things, including the stock exchange. There are a lot of programs that are available for start-up or growth industries that, obviously, we are keen to encourage to come into our area or to develop from the existing businesses in our area.That may be a small thing but it is something that we hope in the long term will assist with the development of jobs in our region. In the face of this and some positive work that I think you can do as a local member, all of us are struggling to talk to our local businesses about some of the problems that the government has thrown in our way. Whilst some people think that the GST has not caused a lot of problems, I am still receiving many, many phone calls and complaints. I have had discussions with local businesses that are struggling with the system that has been introduced. It is not just the business activity statement, although there are complaints about that. I am pleased to have been appointed as a member of Labor's committee which is reviewing BAS and the compliance problems for small business. We actually had our first hearing on Friday in Melbourne, and it was really quite amazing to listen to the personal stories of many businesses. Whilst I had a clear understanding or taste of the sorts of problems businesses were experiencing in my electorate, it was very interesting to find those consistently repeated across Melbourne. One of the most common complaints, which I must say I can relate to, was businesspeople coming to us and saying, `I do have a degree, and I have successfully run this business for 25 years, but my degree is not in accounting and I cannot understand what I am supposed to do with this BAS statement.' That was said to us so many times.It seems to me that the frustration was not just that people could not fill it out but that the advertising that the government so generously undertook really made people feel like they were idiots if they could not fill in these forms. It really tried to portray this for its political purposes as being so simple that it actually made businesspeople who had to spend an enormous amount of time in compliance feel much more inadequate than was appropriate—just because they could not understand how to fill out these forms properly. They could not understand new definitions, particularly things like why expenditure had suddenly become an appropriation. How do you get your head around the idea that your electricity bill is an appropriation? I must say I think that they have a point on that. So it will be interesting for us to work through the concerns that people have, and I am confident that we will be able to make some very useful suggestions to improve the system.The other difficulty we have in my electorate—and I think it is reflected elsewhere as well—is in the administration of the Regional Assistance Program. The area consultative committee for the Metro West Area covers six council areas in my region. Three of them are in my region, and there are three other council areas as well. We recently had the CEO resign. We had the chair of the committee resign some days later. We do not currently have anyone filling those positions. We have some very good and active community members who are volunteering and giving their time to sit on this committee, but I must say that the government's program is set up in such a way that there does not really appear to be much accountability. The department do not seem to identify early whether there are problems. If there are certain areas that are underperforming, they do not ensure that they go out and see how the committees are operating.This is of great importance to us because, as I indicated at the start of my speech, we are still an area of very high unemployment. The money that is set aside through this Regional Assistance Program is designed, according to its guidelines, to provide assistance in creating jobs and identifying areas where there might be jobs growth, and in retraining people in circumstances where they might have lost their jobs as a result of restructuring throughout industry or of particular places of employment. It is of great concern to me that money that might otherwise have been available to the community perhaps has not been available over the past years because of some lack of accountability or mishandling of this program. I have asked some questions in relation to this and I am hoping that, with the goodwill and good work of the local committee members, we will be able to find a new CEO and a good chair for the committee who will be able to rectify this situation and hopefully deliver and approve some decent programs for our area.This is an issue that is of great concern to me. Particularly in the last week, many of you in this House will have heard an announcement that the Bradmill Undare Group has been put into receivership. The administrators took over the running of this plant last Wednesday. This is a major employer in my electorate in Yarraville. Around 800 people work at the Yarraville site, and another 40 or 50 people work at a site in Maidstone. Both are in my electorate and many of the employees live in my electorate and the surrounding regions. There are also another 60 or so jobs in Ararat and in Reservoir. We are doing everything possible to try and ensure that the appointment of administrators does not mean that the business will not be able to continue or that these workers will lose their jobs. I had the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister last week in parliament what the government were going to do to ensure that they provided all the necessary and available assistance to this company to ensure that if possible it continued to operate. I cannot overstate how devastating it would be for our region if the plant were to close. Everyone in this House should have great compassion for those 800 workers and their families and do everything possible to ensure that they have secure ongoing employment. I am not confident however, given my past experiences with this current government and the way that they dealt with the Braybrook manufacturing workers when their business closed. Off the top of my head, 60 or 70 employees—I cannot remember the exact number—were left without their full entitlements being paid. This government refused to take any action in that case. We in our region had a very bad experience of the way the government was prepared to treat our interests. This situation is slightly different. We hope we will not be in a position where we have workers losing their jobs, and we hope we will not have to deal with the issue of entitlements. But it does need active assistance from the government at this stage to ensure that every opportunity is taken to secure ongoing work and to secure this business if it is at all possible. I have put a number of options in a letter to the Prime Minister today. I have also filed some questions on notice in the parliament. I am trying to ensure that the government is going to pursue every possible avenue, and there may be more that I have not thought of, in trying to assist this company in staying open and operational. But in particular I am seeking to understand from the government why it is that this company that will more than likely be entitled to a significant payment under the TCF SIP scheme is not able to have that money in advance. There is not very much comfort for this company if they are going to receive—I do not know what the sum is—several million dollars at the end of the year when they have already closed. It seems to me that if that amount of money would make the difference in keeping the business open, looking at some way of providing it earlier is the sort of thing that a compassionate government would do. It certainly is the sort of thing that a government would do if they were committed to employment in regional areas.There are other opportunities as well. The RAP program that I have mentioned before has other streams, not just through the area consultative committees but in dealing with issues when they involve regional employment and when there are national projects that are of concern. It should be of great concern to members opposite because millions and millions of dollars worth of cotton is actually grown in other regions in this country and bought by Bradmill to make their denim, shirts and other things. That market will go if this business closes and I think that is something that all of us want to stop.I urge the government to take all the action that it possibly can to assist these workers and the business. I have been doing what I can at the local level over the last 2½ years to ensure that wherever there is any opportunity to support jobs growth and employment as a local member I do that. But certainly there are some things that are in the hands of the government of the day and I would like to plead that the government take very seriously the plight of Bradmill and their workers and hope that something more positive will occur in the coming weeks.17:29:0025022Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, for giving me the opportunity to speak today on the appropriation bills. I want to, firstly, raise the issue of nursing homes and aged care hostels. To discuss nursing homes and aged care hostels is certainly a challenge. First you have to get your head around the failure of the ALP to adequately meet the challenges of this portfolio, then you have to appreciate the work that has been done to bring aged care not only up to scratch but also up to the standard Australians expect for our elderly citizens. Luckily the Howard government saw that areas needed fixing and commenced the process of reform. The Minister for Aged Care, the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop, must be congratulated on facing this challenge head-on. The centrepiece of the Howard government's aged care program is more beds, more money and better care. Major problems confronted included 13 years of neglect and 13 years of credit card mentality. As to the chronic shortage of beds, an audit of aged care by the Auditor-General showed Australia in need of 10,000 more places—10,000 places were needed for the most vulnerable in our society. People who needed care, often 24-hour care, were being neglected by the Labor Party.During the Labor years research was conducted and it was found that there should be 40 high care beds, 50 low care beds and 10 community aged care packages per 1,000 people aged 70 years or older—that is 100 places per 1,000. Thanks to Labor cutbacks between 1985 and 1991 the result was 93 places per 1,000 people aged 70 years or older. In two years—from 1999-2000—over 22,000 places were announced to help pick up the shortfall that Labor created. Today there are over 140,000 aged care places. The Howard government and Minister Bishop are to be congratulated on remedying the calamity the ALP left as their aged care legacy. The Howard government has also ensured that the good providers will be allowed to continue providing quality care to more people by expanding their operations. If some operators choose to close their operations, so be it. I am pleased to say that 190 operators did leave the industry. They have gone and will never again darken the lives of the aged. They have gone, but their beds have not been lost: they have been relocated to providers who know what they are doing and do it well. As the elected caretaker of the Hume electorate, which belongs to the Australian people, I am proud to say that all of the nursing homes and aged care facilities in the Hume electorate have adjusted to the change. If an operator sees a brighter opportunity elsewhere and wants to move bed allocation to a wealthier area, they are not allowed to do so if it means a net loss of beds in the region. The result is no net loss of beds, which is a goal the ALP should have always kept in mind.I will now move to the no accreditation process, which is simply remarkable. There are all those people in care, yet there is no legislation to ensure that the care they receive is of a standard we would expect. It should be remembered that many aged care residents have no family; they are on their own. The Howard government came to their aid and ensured levels of care that met our moral expectations. Of the 700 homes that applied for accreditation, all but 21 met the new standards, but these 21 are committed to meeting the accreditation standards. This means that the people in those 21 homes will have a better standard of care than they would have otherwise had if the ALP were still in government. The ALP also neglected the ageing population. The good news is that, if we live beyond 70, 80 per cent will never need aged care; however, seven per cent will need residential aged care and 13 per cent will need to have some form of service care. That extends to everything from Meals on Wheels to help around the home or help with shopping. The Howard government believes in people staying in their homes for longer, allowing them to have as much independence as possible. We have supported that belief with increased services in the home. It is a commitment to people's quality of life. The community aged care packages have increased from 4,000 in 1996 to 24,000 today. Half the people who receive community care basically have a hostel in their own home. These people may still go into high care; however, they will do so, on average, about 15 months later than they ordinarily would have. What pleased me most was seeing the minister in the House the other day detailing the government's year 2000 aged care approvals round. More than 700 aged care providers have been granted over 14,000 aged care places worth more than $156 million. This represents the largest ever release of aged care places. There has also been $30 million in capital grants for residential aged care homes, $9 million for restructuring capital and $5 million to establish community aged care packages. Most of these 6,532 places will be in place in the next few months. In all, the funding the minister has announced represents a total boost of $200 million. I am pleased that a number of aged care facilities in the electorate of Hume have applied for funding for restructuring. But the most pleasing part of the minister's announcement the other day was that 44 per cent of places and 74 per cent of capital grants have gone to rural and regional Australia.While we are on the topic of increased funding to the bush—I should not say `the bush'; I should say `the country'—I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the federal government on its commitment to improving the roads across this great nation of ours. More importantly, the federal government has improved the roads in the electorate of Hume, which it is my honour to represent. Tomorrow, for example, I will be opening the Bookham bypass. This is an $80 million bypass of the Bookham village. The Bookham bypass represents a major commitment to improving safety and travel conditions along the Hume Highway, and brings closer the federal government's next objective—to construct continuous four lanes from Sydney to the Sturt Highway turn-off. I will have a bit more to say about that in a minute.Overall, the bypass project involves construction of 19 kilometres of dual carriageway by duplicating the existing highway on the approaches to Bookham and constructing a new four-lane road to bypass the village itself. With full completion of the project planned for mid-year, this major federally funded upgrading will provide motorists and the road transport industry with real road safety and travel time benefits along the Hume Highway within New South Wales.This is just one of the projects I have been privileged to be involved with. Over the next few months and years hopefully I will be able to announce a number of projects flowing from the federal government's Roads to Recovery Program. In the electorate of Hume over the next four years we will see road funding to local government increase by over $21 million. That averages out, in my case, to about $388,000 per annum for four years. This is a pretty significant contribution from the federal government.Hopefully this will be complemented by a similar amount committed by the New South Wales government. Since I was in the state government, I have seen road funding that we were receiving—for example the three by three funding introduced by the Greiner government, under which the allocation was 60 per cent to rural and 40 per cent to metropolitan—reversed to the extent where the rural people got 40 per cent and the metropolitan people received 60 per cent. Consequently, we saw the infrastructure that we were catching up on slowly deteriorate. This now needs an enormous amount of money to ensure that our roads are safe for people such as me who, unlike some of my metropolitan counterparts, spend an enormous amount of time on the road, doing about 130,000 kilometres a year.I now speak to the points I made earlier regarding the contribution that I hope to see in the years ahead to roads—specifically major roads—in the Hume electorate, under the Roads to Recovery Program. There has been considerable discussion over a number of years now about a bypass of the Murrumbateman village on the Barton Highway. After many reports, an enormous amount of research by about 11 state and federal government departments, support of the program by two successive Yass shire councils and a significant plea by the residents of Murrumbateman to overcome the angst in the community because of indecision, it is quite apparent that the eastern bypass option needs to go ahead. In the interests of settling the community and getting the matter up and running, the minister needs to make a definitive statement as quickly as possible. Through the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, a definite start to the bypass and to the duplication of the Hume Highway at Coolac must be made, as it is long overdue. I understand that the delay is due to a concern that some of the areas contain some material. There is some sensitivity about the route of that particular bypass in some respects and it has been in the news over the years. More importantly, we should look at the duplication of the Sheehan Bridge at Gundagai. The bridge is named after two politicians—Billy Sheehan and his son, Terry—who served that community and that part of New South Wales very professionally and appropriately over a 47-year period for the ALP. We should now consider complementing the Sheehan Bridge with a duplication and a grade separated overpass at the northern end. To explain why I say this, I take you through some history.Gundagai was one of the first towns on the Hume Highway to be bypassed, and the bypass was completed along with the construction of the new bridge over the Murrumbidgee River, which I have already referred to as the Sheehan Bridge, in the late 1970s. At the time, at-grade intersections were considered adequate for access to north and south Gundagai, and provisions and promises were made by governments, as they do, for future grade separation of the north and south Gundagai accesses. Pressure from the council has subsequently achieved an interchange consisting of a southbound off-ramp, a northbound, grade separated off-ramp and a southbound on-ramp into Sheridan Street. No grade separated, northbound on-ramp has been provided at this location.The interchange still does not work properly due to the southbound on-ramp and northbound off-ramp flowing onto a single highway carriageway on the approaches to the Sheehan Bridge, and it will not be safe until the duplication of the Sheehan Bridge occurs. No grade separated, northbound on-ramp off the end of West Street, Gundagai was provided, despite being shown on the plans. However, the approach earthworks were done, and are substantially ready for a bridge and pavement construction. The flood plain of the Murrumbidgee River is very wide, making north and south Gundagai two separate settlements. The Sheehan Bridge is over one kilometre long. Gundagai Council appreciates the federal government's provision of the south Gundagai overpass which was completed last year, and the area is now much safer. However, the only way to travel north from north Gundagai necessitates negotiating the at-grade highway intersection at the northern end of West Street. At the time of the bypass, Gundagai suffered significant economic hardship due to the loss of passing highway trade, but over the years it has adjusted through great efforts of the council and business. The town has recovered and provides great facilities for travellers, which is an indication of the resilience of rural communities. Many travellers leave the highway for a break or overnight stay.Recently there have been two fatal accidents at the intersection. There have also been many near misses. There is evidence of regular minor accidents with skid marks, smashed signs, damaged median kerbs, damaged guardrail, and broken plastic and glass. These many near misses and non-injury crashes do not show up as statistics. In the fog one morning in May 1993 three people were injured in a multiple vehicle accident involving three cars and one truck. On that particular evening I could not cross the bridge when travelling from Tumut and bypassed it by using the old Prince Edward Bridge diversion around Gundagai. One of those injured persons died two months later. The location of the intersection on a bend over a restricted sight distant crest increases the hazard, particularly for those unfamiliar with the area. The number of trucks and B-doubles on the highway is increasing each year. The intersection is in the 110-kilometre per hour zone off a long downhill run and the trucks travel along the highway at every bit of that 110-kilometre speed, in spite of the speed limiters. The point that I am making here is that it is long overdue for that particular duplication of the bridge at Gundagai and that north run-off to be completed. I call upon the minister to listen to what I have had to say today in this appropriation debate, not only in relation to the eastern bypass at Murrumbateman on the Barton Highway, not only with regard to the bypass and duplication of the Hume Highway at Coolac but, more specifically and just as importantly, the duplication of the Sheehan Bridge at Gundagai and the grade separated overpass which is required at the northern end of the Sheehan Bridge. I say that for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is imperative that we take into consideration the commitment that we should have as governments to ensure that our major arterial routes such as the Hume Highway are as safe as we can possibly make them for our motorists—not only car drivers but, more specifically, transport drivers, who spend an enormous amount of time away from their families in their rigs driving long distances and are under extreme pressure from their companies to perform and, more importantly, under extreme pressure to ensure that the commitment they have made in the purchase of those very expensive rigs is maintained through what they earn on the road. In closing, I say once again that my office has been flooded with requests from the residents of Murrumbateman for the eastern route proposal, which is supported by the RTA and, as I said, 11 other government agencies and the shire council. They are writing to me—and I am passing it on to the minister—that it is about time the minister made a definitive statement on the eastern bypass of the Murrumbateman village and that that should occur very quickly in the interests of making sure that the community can get down to working together as a community rather than be divided, as is the case at the moment. More importantly, I think the minister should do that in the knowledge that he does not always get the right advice from his department that he would expect. I cannot understand why the department has been so dogmatic in not giving the minister the advice that the eastern bypass option is the one that should be taken. Therefore, I think that because of that lack of commitment by the department the minister has been constrained, to some degree, from making a definitive statement on that bypass.17:49:0025025Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I am grateful for the opportunity to join in this debate on the appropriation bills because it gives me an opportunity to compliment Geoff Gallop, the new Premier of Western Australia, and to say how thrilled I was at his victory, and also to deal with a number of issues in my electorate. Geoff Gallop in my view will make a good Premier. I had the privilege of serving with him in the state government as a minister. He is a very dedicated and professional type of bloke—very intelligent and very hardworking. I am sure that the people of Western Australia will benefit from his stewardship and from his government.One of the reasons that Geoff Gallop was successful in WA was that he concentrated on the issues: health, education, law and order, and job security. He turned his back completely on the negative campaign that was being run by the government. It was a negative campaign which saw the government attacking people who had not been in state politics for some 14 and 15 years, one of them a particularly good friend of mine, the former Premier, Brian Burke. This campaign backfired on the Liberals. They wasted an immense amount of money and they squandered an opportunity to be re-elected. There is a lesson in that. It is that there are issues out there that people in our community are focused on—issues that they are concerned about and that they want addressed. I have listened to, even in the time I have been here tonight, two previous government speakers who just wanted to spend a fair amount of time being negative and being personal in their attitude to members of the ALP. There is no sense and no future in that. I think that the important thing for people in parliament is to focus on the service that they ought to be delivering to their constituents and to deal with the issues that concern them. One of the great issues of concern to people in my electorate, particularly those on fixed incomes, those on low incomes and those generally who are battling, is the GST. The GST has had a massive impact on a number of those people. It has impacted on their ability to live a reasonable life and to have a reasonable quality of life. They are just kicking more and more money into this government's coffers, and they are angry about it. They are very angry about it, and I think with good reason. It is because of those battlers, because of those pensioners and because of those people on lower and fixed incomes that the ALP has consistently opposed the GST and has now embarked on a process of rolling the GST back and making it fairer for those people who have felt the greatest impact without any proper compensation for it.One of the other areas that I want to talk about is education, because one of the great levellers in our society is education. As I go around the schools, many teachers and parents are telling me that the gulf is widening in education and that many kids whose families are battling economically are going backwards as the gulf widens between the haves and the have-nots. I have some school communities in Cowan where parents can and do go out and fundraise very successfully. These schools can run fetes and raise many thousands of dollars. There is a lot of work involved, but they can be very successful fundraisers. I have other schools in different parts of the electorate where, because of the social and economic environment, the P&Cs battle to raise $500 or $600 at a school fete.The level of education that kids receive and the facilities in support of them should not be determined by the financial capacity of the area in which the school is located or in which they live. One school in my electorate, which I want to talk a little about, is Montrose. Montrose has a school population of some 350 students and includes an education support unit. The school is in an area where there is a highly transient population and this movement is reflected in the school. For instance, last year from an enrolment of 330 students they had a turnover of some 130 children. That is, they started the school year with 330 and finished with 330, but during the school year they had 130 students leave to be replaced by another 130 who moved in. A lot of the parents of these kids are battlers. Many of the children have come from homes where the parents have had limited education, or education in another country. Many of the children come from war-torn countries; many of the children are Aboriginal.While many of the students bring a myriad of social issues from diverse backgrounds, they also bring a wealth of cultural richness to the school. The school has built upon this diversity and turned it into a positive. Many of the students come from homes where there are low literacy skills and, in this environment, specialist skills in teaching English as a second language are paramount. Montrose runs a range of programs, and the teachers have created a dynamic and exciting experience for the students. For example, for the past five years the school has won the local Saturday morning netball competition, where it competes in a very competitive area; and, despite having a heavy handicap based on past success, the school continues to excel in interschool sports, athletics and cross-country events. The year before last also saw the school win the local eisteddfod in the recorder ensemble. There are, of course, many factors that contribute to the positive environment of Montrose Primary. Certainly one of those factors is the caring, compassionate and professional attitude of the principal, Mr Metcalfe. This, coupled with the enthusiasm and dedication of his staff—which has seen a continuity of teachers who have been prepared to stay at the school for long periods—has helped create a stability at the school which, sadly, many of these children do not have in their own homes. Montrose Primary is complemented by a small but willing band of hard workers who run the P&C. Last year, they ran an all-day fete which raised some $700. They also run a not for profit school canteen which opens at 8.15 a.m. and provides healthy, nutritious food choices. In the course of last year the canteen served 11,600 lunches at an affordable cost to the students. I compliment the school canteen on delivering this particularly important service.Last year I took the opportunity to carry the Paralymic torch through the streets of Sydney and to pass that flame on to Dawn Fraser. I brought that torch back to Perth with me and invited a number of the schools that had supported the Paralympics and the Paralympians to submit their names. We put these names into a hat, drew the winning school and I presented that torch to it. I was absolutely thrilled that the winning school was Montrose. It was a great thrill for me, too, to see that prize torch going to a school of which I have such a high opinion. When I went to an assembly at the school to present the torch, the students sang I am Australian, which is one of my favourite songs. Students from 20 or more ethnic backgrounds sang with majestic harmony and unity, and this came close to bringing a tear to my eye. I could see why the principal, the teachers and the parents of Montrose are so proud of their school and of their students. That pride in the school and that harmony may be why the school has not had a single suspension for five years.But this school has an uphill battle. Parents and teachers tell me that the gulf is getting wider, that the struggle to keep up is getting tougher and that the playing field is not level. I said earlier that education is the great leveller in Australia. Education is also a matter of choice. Many parents choose to send their children to private schools and that is their right. What is also their right is to be given a fair go. None of the schools in Western Australia attract the sort of funding that we see going to elite schools in the eastern states. Indeed, under the Howard government, some 60 schools in New South Wales and Victoria shared approximately $57 million of government funding and will continue to do so on an annual basis. These are rich, elite schools, many of which charge fees in the order of $10,000 per student per year. These schools have out-of-classroom facilities which would cost more to maintain than many of the schools in my electorate have in total to spend on an annual basis.There are many schools like Montrose around Australia—battling government and private schools which hang together on the basis of the dedication of the teachers and the parents. If schools like Montrose can do what they are doing and achieve what they are achieving with little or no federal government help, imagine what they could do for our young Australians if they were given some real assistance. Education is of paramount importance to the teachers and parents in Cowan and I will be making sure that it is an election issue. The future of many of the young people in Australia, not just in the workplace or in further education but in lifestyle and life choices, is paramount. It is more important for the young people in Cowan to be given a fair go than it is for this government to continue its elitist policies of taking from the many simply to give to the few.I have also been almost inundated with a large number of people coming to see me about the problems they have experienced with the Australian Taxation Office, mainly in relation to some of these quite legal schemes which have been running for some time and in which a number of people have invested. I would like to quote from just one letter which I understand was sent to the Treasurer sometime late last year. I am not sure that the person has had a response yet, but I intend to quote from this letter because it is one of many I have had. It probably embraces the sorts of issues that many people in my electorate are having. The letter reads: I am writing to express my concern over the A.T.O.'s approach to my investments entered into over the past four years and the subsequent disallowance of the tax deductibility of these projects.The two investments I invested in were Satcom and the Budplan series A and acting on advice from professional financial planners and my accountant (who is a C.P.A. !) together with cash flow forecasts and prospectus I decided to invest. I even phoned the A.T.O. office in Cannington W.A. and was told that there was no problem and he even knew of the projects and indicated to me that these were legitimate investments.I was horrified to learn later on that three years after becoming involved the A.T.O. had done a complete “back flip” by reversing the deductibility of these projects. This occurs even after having had a section 221d filed and approved some 10 months earlier and after having received some large refunds which went back into the projects....the balance outstanding on my financial arrangements to come from the profits of the investments.Now if I were running a business (and yes the A.T.O. is a business) I most certainly would not allow larger than normal refunds without checking and most certainly would not allow a section 221d variation form to be approved without knowing what the heck it relates to and then have to reverse my decision nearly a year later. The A.T.O. cannot hide behind what we are told is a “self assessment” system of taxation......There must be some accountability and ownership of the problem which has been created by tardiness and inaction on the part of the A.T.O. as these types of investment have been around for over ten years and some in fact have been approved by no less than 3 deputy commissioners in the A.T.O.I went into these projects as a supplement to my long term security and to form part of a superannuation style investment. God knows that we hear all the time that there won't be any pensions available when I need it in 15 years time. I looked at these investments the same way negative gearing is tax deductible and even after considering the cash flow forecasts and only looking at 50 per cent of the expected figure it appeared commercially sound and had the bonus of allowing some tax concessions.Now the A.T.O. has advised that they are reassessing yet another year and want settlement forthwith prior to any of the numerous test cases that are being prepared to go to court. With threats of high penalties and huge interest rates we are being held to ransom by a department in our own government. The same ATO has already forced into liquidation one of the research sections of Budplan which effectively means there is now no hope of this section ever being able to return a dividend to investors. If the Directors of Budplan or associated companies have erred then it is a matter for the ASIC to investigate ...... NOT the ATO. I can not begin to tell you how much stress and pressure has been put on both me and my family and the families of the reportedly 58,000 other investors in up to 200 different investments. The ATO through Mr Carmody has embarked on nearly two years of attacks on investors through the media, labelling us as tax cheats etc. Yet not once has he or any of his department contacted me to find out why I invested in the first place. He prefers to threaten us with the blanket approach his office has taken to assume that under section 4A we all went into these investments purely or predominantly for the taxation advantages. This was not the case but no one appears interested in the ATO. Does he honestly think that we invested time, money and effort just to lose it all ...... money, health and in some cases families. I personally know of families trying to come to grips with selling their homes and have seen the upset caused by this situation.He goes on to say:Minister, I urge you to try to get this matter sorted out as I can not get a straight answer from anyone at present. Please bring this matter up in Parliament as there are people in your own electorates who are hurting. I worked out that there are probably twenty or more people of voting age in my immediate family who are aware of this situation. Do the maths and with 58,000 investors with an average of even fifteen voting age members ...... This equates to 870,000 votes!!!! Whether it is 870,000 votes or whatever, it is apparent that these people are getting rough end of the pineapple treatment. I have had ordinary Australian families, mums and dads, sitting in my office in tears, some of them—completely devastated and stressed and having immense pressure put on their finances and their family lives. All they want is a fair go from the ATO. They want to know that they are going to have their day in court and they want the ATO to stop playing the sorts of games that they are playing.The ATO is constantly moving the goalposts and when these investors think that they are going to have their day in court, all of a sudden something else changes and it is extended. They are the sorts of games that lawyers play and I can understand why so many people are upset and stressed. These are ordinary Australian families—they are not criminals, they are not Skases; they simply want to know where they stand and they want to know sooner rather than later. I have no doubt that the longer the ATO stretches this out, the more difficult it is going to make it for these families.I think the game that the ATO is playing is an appalling one. It is the sort of thing that you would expect the worst and most base of lawyers to play in some sort of criminal prosecution. The ATO is playing with the lives and the wellbeing of many ordinary Australians and it is about time it realised that and got on with the issues, rather than trying to break these people through the cat and mouse tactics that it is adopting. I call on the ATO to have this matter fixed, to have it rectified and to let people know where they stand. I think that is a fair enough request and I reckon in terms of giving people a fair go, that is what the ATO ought to do.18:05:0025029Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the appropriation bills Nos 2, 3 and 4 of 2000-01, which provide funding in addition to moneys allocated in the budget 2000-01. There are several issues that I will be covering this evening, petrol indexation being one of them. Australians across the nation would be aware of the announcements by the Prime Minister last Thursday, 1 March 2001. Not only did the Prime Minister and cabinet decide that the government would reduce the petrol excise by 1.5c per litre effective from midnight that night but the Prime Minister also announced a substantial package with a view to giving Australian motorists, including small businesses, families and pensioners, relief from the ever increasing petrol excise indexation. Thus, not only have Australians experienced the 1.5c per litre reduction in petrol prices but it was the coalition government, led by John Howard, that abolished Labor's half-yearly indexation of petrol excise.As part of the package, the ACCC price watchdog has been given special powers to monitor petrol prices, including the differences between city and country, and also to examine if a cap can be placed on price fluctuations. The Prime Minister has also announced that an inquiry will be held into the issue of fuel taxation in Australia. Thus, a review of the whole petrol tax regime will commence on the basis of revenue neutrality. This is good news for the public, who will be saving approximately $600 million in fuel taxes in the first year. That will, of course, increase in time; however, there will no longer be the automatic CPI indexation twice a year. It is at this point that I would like to take the opportunity to thank all of my Makin residents who have supported me in my campaign and, in particular, those who took the time to sign the petition that I raised in August of last year seeking the consideration of a petrol excise freeze on 1 February 2001. The petition, with 9,600 petitioners, was presented in the House of Representatives on 7 December 2000. I am delighted, in the light of our petition campaign, about the Prime Minister's decision regarding petrol excise relief. This demonstrates that both the Prime Minister and the government are willing to listen to strong community concerns with regard to issues that affect our community. As members in this House will be aware, our federal parliament over recent weeks has been subjected to an ongoing— A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 6.10 p.m. to 6.24 p.m.0L6Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER—The petition with 9,600 petitioners was presented in the House of Representatives on 7 December 2000.In the light of our petition campaign, I am delighted with the Prime Minister's decision on petrol excise relief. This demonstrates that both the Prime Minister and the government are willing to listen to strong community concerns with regard to issues which affect our community.As members in this House would be aware, our federal parliament over recent weeks has been subjected to an ongoing political farcical exercise by not only the opposition leader, Kim Beazley, but also the deputy opposition leader, Simon Crean. They called for coalition members to cross the floor to support a bill that would supposedly freeze the excise; and yet we again had the opposition leader and the deputy opposition leader—in the print media, on radio and national television—back-pedalling on the issue. When confronted by journalists on occasions too numerous to count, the response to questions of what the Labor Party would do with regard to changing the fuel excise regime has been denial. For example, on 31 March 2000 on ABC Central Queensland radio, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer was asked the question: What about fuel excise, Mr Crean? That causes a lot of problems too. What—what sort of commitment can Labor make regarding fuel excise?Simon Crean answered:Well, what we've—basically our position has been that there needs to be this mix between indirect taxes and direct taxes. We always had fuel excise in that mix. We were not proposing to make any changes to the fuel excise regime. That wasn't the issue.I would like to repeat that for our colleagues opposite. Simon Crean, on national radio, said, `We were not proposing to make any changes to the fuel excise regime. That wasn't the issue.' He then continued to wimp out and said:What you've got to do is to introduce more competition—which rather sounds like a coalition policy to me—as to the way in which fuel is distributed in this country and retailed in this country. It's that competition that's really going to open up and push prices down. I mean, the reason you've got low prices in the cities is because you've got a lot of independents in the cities—in Melbourne and Sydney—driving the price down. What we really need to do is encourage that sort of direction. What they're doing to excise is further complicating the problem.In effect, this was and really is the position of the Labor Party: stunts in the House wasting taxpayers' money. They should be ashamed of themselves. The hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this issue knows no bounds and is absolutely extraordinary. I would like to remind all Australians that, when Labor came to office in 1983, petrol excise was 6.155c per litre. When it left office, the excise was 34.183c. This was the Hawke-Keating fuel price index introduced in August 1983—bearing in mind, of course, that on no less than five, five different occasions, the Labor Party legislated to increase the petrol excise over and above the inflation adjustments. Then we had their 1993 promises that they would not increase taxes. Of course, after being elected, they immediately increased wholesale sales tax and fuel excise without compensation for either motorists or pensioners. Let us not forget the l-a-w tax cuts on which the Prime Minister of the day, Paul Keating, stood in this House with legislation printed declaring that tax cuts for Australian earners were l-a-w. The minute the Labor Party were re-elected into office, the l-a-w office tax cuts disappeared into thin air. That is what the Labor Party thinks of the constituency they claim to represent. The workers are held in contempt by the Labor Party, and it was a coalition government who delivered tax cuts to all Australian wage earners, a record that we are justifiably proud of. I am sure all Australians are delighted with the Prime Minister's decision to abolish automatic indexation. It is certainly going to make a difference to all consumers. On another matter, I am delighted to inform the House that I attended the official opening and dedication of the Salvation Army complex at Greenwith by Colonel Les Strong, an invitation extended to me on behalf of the Salvation Army Greenwith Community Church by Lieutenant-Colonel Vic Pope.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.0L6Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER—For the benefit of those opposite and others who have been listening, I want to repeat a previous part of my speech for the sake of continuity. Earlier we were talking about the abolition of the petrol excise by the Prime Minister, John Howard, and the coalition government and about the hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this issue. It should be ashamed of itself. The hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this issue knows no bounds and is absolutely extraordinary. I remind all Australians that when Labor came into office in 1983 petrol excise was 6.15c per litre. When it left office, excise was 34.183c per litre. This was the Hawke-Keating fuel price index introduced in August 1983. Members should bear in mind of course that on no less than five different occasions the Labor Party legislated to increase the petrol excise over and above the inflation adjustments. Then there were its 1993 promises that it would not increase taxes. Of course, after being elected, as I said earlier in this debate, it immediately increased wholesale sales tax and fuel excise without compensation for either motorists or pensioners.Let us not forget the l-a-w tax cuts when the Prime Minister of the day, Paul Keating, stood in this House with legislation printed declaring that tax cuts for Australian earners were l-a-w. The minute the Labor Party was re-elected into office, the l-a-w tax cuts disappeared into thin air. That is what the Labor Party thinks of the constituency it claims to represent. The workers are held in contempt by the Labor Party. It was a coalition government which delivered tax cuts to all Australian wage earners, a record that we are justifiably proud of. I am sure all Australians are delighted with the Prime Minister's decision to abolish automatic indexation. It will make a difference to all consumers. I remind my colleagues opposite that in March last year the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Simon Crean, said on ABC radio in Queensland, `We always had fuel excise in that mix. We were not proposing to make any changes in the fuel excise regime.' I will repeat it for the benefit of the chamber: `We were not proposing to make any changes to the fuel excise regime. That wasn't the issue.'Lo and behold, members may be interested to know that not so long ago a letter appeared in my electorate from Labor Senator Geoff Buckland, who, by the way, is based on the Anzac Highway in Glenelg in South Australia. He has not even been elected by the people of South Australia; he is a senator elect to replace Senator John Quirke. This man, who is not elected by the taxpayers of South Australia or Australia, is writing to people in my electorate when he is based at Glenelg. I do not know what Glenelg has to do with Tea Tree Gully and the rest of the suburbs in my electorate of Makin, but here we have a letter, which had its postage paid for, from Senator Geoff Buckland distributed to my entire electorate of Makin—not disseminating community news or Labor Party policy, of which there is none. No! He used taxpayers' money to mount a dirty, personal political campaign.Senator Geoff Buckland talked about the fact that the Labor Party had a bill and that Trish Draper did not turn up to vote on it. I did not have to turn up to vote on a Labor Party initiative because the Prime Minister of Australia, cabinet and our government have put together a fantastic package that the Labor Party would not even dream about in a million years. So, paid for with taxpayers' money, was a letter sent to 53,000 households in my electorate. Perhaps my constituents of Makin and the Labor candidate for the Labor Party in my electorate might like to think about the wastage of taxpayers' money. The letter states: PS—If you want to know where Trish Draper was when she had the chance to stand up for local families, please ring my office and ask to be added to the `Where were you Trish?' list. I'll let you know if she ever tells.How pathetic is that? I can tell the House tonight that my electorate office received many calls of disbelief that this should be allowed to occur with taxpayers' money. Because he did not bother ringing my office to ask where I may or may not have been, I am happy to inform Senator Geoff Buckland that I formally abstained from voting with the Labor Party on this issue and I was in my parliamentary office at the time. If Senator Geoff Buckland wishes to once again write to the 53,000 households in my electorate of Makin paid for with taxpayers' money for postage and letterhead, I have already told my electorate where I was. If he choses to do that, that is fine.A question I need to ask the Labor candidate in my electorate is whether or not she is happy about the fact that a Labor senator, not even elected by the taxpayers of South Australia, is wasting taxpayers' money in Makin when he is based in Glenelg. At the time, I released a media release, which I will read into Hansard, headed `Labor senator accused of wasting taxpayer funds in Makin'. The press release states:Mrs Trish Draper, MP—Federal Member for Makin has expressed her disappointment today that Labor Senator Geoff Buckland has wasted tax payers resources to mount a dirty personal and political campaign in Makin rather than using tax payers money for the good of the South Australian community. (Senator Buckland has not even been elected by the people of South Australia, he filled a casual vacancy left by Senator John Quirke).`Apart from the obvious wastage of taxpayers funds on a childish personal and political attack, we need to ask the Labor candidate for Makin ... several questions' ...`Firstly, is she happy about the fact a Labor Senator is wasting taxpayers money in Makin?`Secondly, is the Labor candidate for Makin happy about the fact that a Labor front bencher admitted in Parliament he handed over money in a brown envelope to support the party he was getting preferences from. Is this how the ALP intends to run its campaign in Makin?'Mrs Draper said many constituents had contacted her electorate office to express their outrage at `being treated like fools by the Labor Party' and had stated they did not want their taxpayer funds wasted by the Labor Party in this way.Of the childish `Where were you Trish'? list...I am happy to inform all South Australians that I formally abstained from voting and was in my Parliamentary Office in Canberra at the time ...`I will not support any petrol vote put forward by an ALP hypocrite like the Deputy Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, who presided over a 34% increase in petrol excise while in Government.'20:08:0025032Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Tonight I take the opportunity during debate on the appropriation bills to point out just how mean-spirited this government is in relation to its handling of the Family and Community Services portfolio. In the last few days we have seen the government's clawback strategy, a strategy which will claw back the compensation given to pensioners. It was a strategy put in place when the GST came in which purported to give people compensation, inadequate as the amounts given were. However, 20 March is now known as `Clawback Day'. It is not surprising that the government has called a by-election in the seat of Ryan on 17 March, three days before the clawback, because it knows that clawback means devastation in terms of the political impact which pensioners and social security recipients will have against this government. Today I asked the minister for community services a question during question time quoting from a press release which he put out yesterday. That press release said that `There is no clawback. There is no deduction from pensions, real or otherwise.'I asked him what he was going to say to the 6,649 mobile home and caravan park residents in his electorate of Richmond when clawback cuts their rent assistance. I sought to table a document prepared by the Department of Family and Community Services, for which he is the junior minister, which mentions clawback not once but six times with regard to the compensation package which was occurring. The worst element of clawback, of course, is rent assistance. With respect to rent assistance, what we are actually going to see on 20 March is that people will get a reduction in their pensions. As unbelievable and mean-spirited as that seems, they will actually get less that fortnight than they did the fortnight before. What is the response of the government? It takes a head in the sand approach and says, `No, it's not true. There is no clawback.' We know that that is not the case. Just as they said that petrol was not a problem and then had to reverse that position because they understood eventually how much people were hurting out there, with respect to clawback it defies reality that they can pursue this position. Rent assistance, like pensions and all social security benefits that allegedly increased by four per cent last year, is subject to the government's clawback. Despite the fact that the CPI rose by four per cent in the period July to December 2000 and despite the fact that rent assistance should therefore be indexed by the same amount in March 2001, there will only be a two per cent rise in March. The remaining two per cent was in fact advanced, to use the government's terms, to rent assistance recipients last July. The story gets worse. I am going to quote directly from Senate estimates last week, where my colleague Chris Evans spoke to Mr Cavalli from the Department of Family and Community Services about the impact the government's clawback would have on rent assistance recipients. Mr Evans stated:Could someone explain to me in a broad sense what is going to happen in March? Mr Cavalli answered: What is happening in March is that the maximum rates of rent assistance will be going up by two per cent. That is because there has already been a two per cent advance on the maximum rates provided on 1 July 2000. The rent thresholds will be increasing by four per cent—the CPI increase—as part of the normal indexation process that always occurs in March and September. Mr Evans then asked: So what does this mean for people in receipt of rent assistance? Mr Cavalli answered: It depends on whether they are receiving the maximum rate of rent assistance or whether they are receiving less than the maximum rate of rent assistance. If they are on the maximum rate of rent assistance, most people will get the increase of the two per cent. If they are on a part rate of rent assistance—that is, less than the maximum rate—because the rent threshold has increased, they will receive a small reduction in their rent assistance. As we already know, less than three per cent of park residents receive the maximum rate of rent assistance. Only these 300-odd park residents will receive an extra two per cent in March. Residential park tenants who are on part rates of rent assistance will actually have their rent assistance reduced. The threshold goes up by four per cent, but the government only raises the maximum rate payment by two per cent—a mean-spirited act against what the government itself has identified as some of the most vulnerable people in our community. The Clarence Valley Park Residents Association—an active group in the electorate of Page—has pointed out in correspondence that a pensioner couple with a fortnightly rent of $170 in August 1998 received $40.06 in rent assistance. In July 2000, for the same amount of rent, the rent assistance was $37.34 a fortnight. After 20 March, it will be $35.84. After 20 March, 450,000 Australians will receive rent assistance cuts—not a smaller increase but cuts, a reduction in their payment. No wonder that people who live in residential parks in mobile homes are angry, because the government has simply not listened to their legitimate concerns. Park and boarding house residents are still the only tenants in Australia to pay the GST directly on their rent. One hundred and fifty-eight thousand of them have received no compensation whatsoever to offset this added expense. They are being forced to swallow bitter pill after bitter pill. Not only is their rent assistance slipping away; the four per cent pension increase so lauded by the minister for community services, Larry Anthony, last year is not really a four per cent increase but, like rent assistance, a two per cent increase and a two per cent advance on March 2001 CPI increases, which will be clawed back. The minister argued in question time on Monday, 26 February: The government was very clear and transparent that there was to be a full two per cent real increase on 1 July last year, plus a two per cent advance. He concluded his response to a follow-up question by stating, `We were very clear and very categorical.' What are the facts? The minister must have a very perverse definition of what constitutes `clear' and `categorical'. Let us examine what the minister himself said in June last year about the increase. In a media release titled `Anthony welcomes extra assistance' released on Thursday, 22 June to proclaim the government's increases to the maximum rate of rent assistance, the member for Richmond and the minister stated: These rent allowance increases are part of the compensation package that includes the four per cent increase in pensions ... There is no mention about clawback there. There is no mention of, `We're going to grab two per cent of that—half of that—out of your pocket come March next year.' But Larry goes even further. In the Tweed Valley Review, a community newsletter produced and paid for by the taxpayers of Australia and spread around the electorate of Richmond, Larry Anthony, in a stand-alone sentence, says: The government is increasing pensions by 4 per cent. How is this clear and categorical? The minister clearly states repeatedly that the increase is four per cent. There was no mention of clawback then by this minister. And no wonder, because it is such an embarrassing, indefensible, mean-spirited, cold-hearted decision by this government that exemplifies everything that it stands for. After 20 March this year 170,000 low income families and youth allowance recipients will have an outright cut in their benefits since their rent assistance cuts will not be offset by the two per cent increase in their primary benefit. This government has misled park residents, it has misled boarding house residents and it has misled social and pension recipients. Its compensation packages for the GST amount to virtually nothing and pensioners themselves know that they are worse off. And we see the government putting out statements such as the minister did today in response to the fact that rent assistance is going to actually be reduced in real terms from 20 March. What is the minister's response? To put out a press release with only about 10 words on it saying `Pensioners better off'. That just adds to the perception that this government is arrogant, totally out of touch and is just not listening.And no wonder, because the member for Richmond, and the other members who hold marginal seats in coastal areas up and down New South Wales and Queensland, are indeed getting very desperate. It is because the government has so abjectly failed to deliver that the minister is beginning to panic. The result is that the minister is now announcing pilot projects in his own seat after Senator Newman, when she was the Minister for Family and Community Services, had already announced that the projects will be occurring elsewhere. On 17 January this year, Senator Newman announced that the government will be funding a series of caravan parks family crisis child-care pilot projects. She named the states that the projects will be piloted in: Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory. As revealed in Senate estimates on 20 February, the development of the project had been going on for at least six months before the announcement. The issue of whether New South Wales was feasible as a pilot state was discussed early on with the department, but as Ms Corbett indicated in the Senate estimates, it was not perceived that Richmond would be included in this project. However, because the minister was visiting the electorate of Richmond, Minister Anthony chose to announce that his seat would be included in the project. But there was no list of which parks the project would be piloted in, no response from the department over whether this would require extra funding and no answers as to which areas the funding would be taken away from. That is simply an example of policy making on the run from a government that has simply run out of steam. It is not surprising, though, that we have this level of misleading from the government, because when we look at this latest misleading with regard to rent assistance, it is actually very consistent with the government's approach the whole way through. At the time of the 1998 federal election, the government promised that no tenant would be forced to pay the GST on residential rents. The Deputy Leader of the National Party, Mark Vaile, proudly told permanent park residents in the seat of Lyne:I would like to assure you that residents who occupy accommodation in a caravan park or a holiday village on a permanent basis (ie over 28 days) will not have to pay the GST on their site fees. This will be treated in the same way as rental of a house or unit, and is GST free. After the election, however, suddenly the government's line changed. Larry Anthony declared to the Tweed Daily News that `Site fees are not the same as rent.' Warren Truss, the then Minister for Community Services stated, `What are caravan parks if they are not tourist accommodation?' This comment was from a man who represents a seat on the Sunshine Coast of Queensland and who has thousands of permanent park residents in his electorate. The fact is that permanent park and boarding house residents are the only tenants in Australia who are forced to pay the GST up front on their rent. Despite the enormous pressure placed upon residents through organisations such as the Affiliated Park Residents Association, the government has stubbornly refused to alter its discriminatory decision. As far as this government is concerned, if you rent a luxury apartment in Kirribilli or Toorak, you do not have to pay the GST up front on your rent, but if you live in a caravan in Nowra, or Kirribilli, or Cairns, or Kalgoorlie, you do.Despite their obstinacy, the government have realised that they had to make some concessions and appear to be trying to do something. But at each and every point they have actually made the discrimination worse and made people angrier. First, they changed the system so that the GST rate was to be 5.5 per cent after 28 days rather than the full 10 per cent. When that was proven to be incorrect, they then came up with the suggestion that they would increase the maximum rate of rental assistance. This was after these brave heroes had gone to the National Party conference in Tweed Heads and carried a resolution unanimously suggesting that the GST would be removed. One thing that characterises this debate is that people are prepared to say one thing in their electorate and another when they are in Canberra. In their electorate, they are against the GST; in Canberra, they vote for it and fall into line. After that National Party conference, when the member for Richmond implied that he was prepared to give up his white car to stand up for the residents, he came to Canberra and did nothing. He was silent. There was a deal forged with the Democrats in June last year around rent assistance. The Democrats and the government boasted that their deal, an extra three per cent increase to the maximum rate of rent assistance bringing the total increase to 10 per cent, would fully compensate mobile home and boarding house residents for the impact of the GST on their site fees. Meg Lees and Andrew Bartlett boasted:... extra concessions won from government ... represent a marked improvement on the current situation and the package negotiated by the National Party ... Residents of boarding houses and caravan parks include some of the most underprivileged people in our society. Helen Dickie, the federal president of the National Party, said that the announcement of the extra $33 million in rent assistance was specifically designed to help those `living in caravan parks and boarding houses'. John Anderson said:These measures announced today ... will particularly help renters in caravan parks and boarding houses. Larry Anthony, never far behind when incompetent statements are being issued, declared:Relocatable home residents are ensured of fair treatment under the new tax system. Today we find out the reality. The reality is that, of that three per cent increase, out of the more than 160,000 permanent residents only some 3,955 got a single cent. Ninety-seven per cent of people in this form of accommodation got nothing from the government. What we have found now is that these people are actually going to get a reduction in their rental assistance. People in seats like Gilmore will be angry. They will be angry because they have been misled. It is one thing to do people over and take away money from them; it is another thing to tell them `We are going to fix you up and give you extra,' and then give them less. The beauty of this with regard to these residents is that they do have some hope, because the Labor Party is committed to treating them the same as all other renters and removing the discrimination, because it simply has to happen. These people are among the most vulnerable people in our society and to subject them to the government's clawback with regard to rental assistance is simply obscene and a social injustice which should make all genuine representatives in this House very angry and prepared to make representations on behalf of those constituents. Government members have failed but the Australian Labor Party will deliver after the next election. (Time expired)20:28:0025036Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I would like to talk about charity or, more accurately, a lack of it. On several occasions, Prime Minister Howard has rightly called on corporate Australia and individual Australians to become more philanthropic, to help their fellow Australians in need. On the other hand, Prime Minister Howard's government is adopting policies that contribute to the number of Australians requiring assistance, who more and more are forced to seek this from non-public charities and community service providers. Equally perplexing is the fact that many of these non-public, not-for-profit philanthropic organisations have been taxed for their charity. For this government, charity certainly does not begin at home—indeed, quite the contrary. For many service organisations not deemed by the new tax system to be a charitable institution, their reward is to be taxed for their efforts. There is a 10 per cent GST on the funds raised for charitable programs and a further 10 per cent GST on membership dues which are used to administer the organisation and the programs—in fact, a double tax on charitable works. Is it little wonder, therefore, that members of service organisations throughout Australia feel their work is undervalued by this tax ruling and the nature of this work is misunderstood? The government is currently conducting an inquiry into the definition of charities and related organisations, and it is certainly to be hoped that this taxation anomaly is dealt with. I would like to highlight the work and structure of Rotary International and Lions Australia in particular to point out the current taxation anomaly. In effect, both organisations are deemed to be not-for-profit organisations but are not ruled to be benevolent or charitable institutions. This lack of recognition effectively prohibits the receipt of tax deductible donations as well as GST deductibility. The placement of community service organisations like Rotary and Lions in the category of community service not for profit under Commonwealth tax legislation has effectively occurred by default over the years. According to the Rotary submission to the Sheppard inquiry on this issue: This placement of Rotary has occurred by default over the years. There was little reason for Rotary to apply for Tax exemption or charitable status because there was always the ability to obtain tax exemption via a statutory authority such as a local Government or a School where items were being purchased to donate to a worthy cause. There were few tax liability concerns because Rotary was exempt from Income tax under its not-for-profit charter. For 95 years Rotary has been allowed to do its work without being taxed.The same situation would hold true for Lions and other clubs such as Apex. Clearly, an investigation of the aims, objectives, structure and charter of these prominent community service organisations can lead to only one conclusion: they are, for all intents and purposes, charitable service organisations and should be treated as such for taxation purposes.Rotary has a worldwide membership of 29,626 clubs and nearly 1.2 million members. In Australia there are 1,200 clubs and something like 38,000 members or, should I say, taxed volunteers. Lions operates some 44,000 clubs in over 187 countries with 1.5 million members. Lions Australia has 30,000 taxed volunteers and 1,400 clubs that contribute around $22 million in community service programs per year in this country. Under the present tax ruling, these funds are taxed. There is, in effect, a tax on their charitable work.Lions and Rotary share one object in common. Their primary focus and reason for being is service—service to their local community, to their nation and internationally to support the needy and unprotected. `Create awareness—take action: in our club, in our community and in our world,' reads the motto of many Rotary Clubs. Likewise, `Service above self—he profits most who serves best.' For Lions it is, `We serve.' The Australian Taxation Office defines a charity on its web site as follows:A charity is an entity established for altruistic purposes that the law regards as charitable. The ATO does not set the guidelines ... Charitable purposes are the relief of poverty, the relief of the needs of the aged, the relief of sickness or distress, the advancement of religion, the advancement of education and other purposes beneficial to the community. The characteristics of a charity are:—according to the ATO web site—It is an entity which is also a trust fund or an institutionIt exists for the public benefit or the relief of povertyIts purposes are charitable within the legal sense of that termIt is non-profit, andIts sole or dominant purpose is charitable.By this definition, Rotary, Lions, Apex and other community service organisations are not only charitable organisations but should be accorded the status for taxation purposes. Clearly, they are `entities'. They are incorporated bodies, structured and containing clearly set out objectives and rules of membership and organisation. They are `altruistic' and exist for the benefit of the community or the relief of poverty. They are often the first port of call for community and even government organisations when assistance is needed, for a host of causes. For example, I note some of the areas of major focus of Rotary throughout the world. Indeed, there is massive support to undeveloped parts of the world through aid, be it direct or indirect, and through volunteer programs. For example, volunteers through their own financial support pay their own air fares and other costs. In the financial year 1999-2000 nearly a quarter of a million dollars worth of air fares was spent by members going about their volunteer programs. Of course, no remuneration was given for time they were away from their employment. On building projects, for example, Rotary volunteers will train locals to use the tools and then donate these tools when they leave.Directors of the company Rotary Australia World Community Service Ltd are volunteers who receive no remuneration for their time and services. Indeed, the annual report of Rotary Australia World Community Service Ltd pointed out that such services provided $5.5 million in aid with a little over $200,000 via grants from AusAID. Extra millions of dollars of aid, I am told, are directed through individual clubs. About $2.5 million worth of goods is collected through Australia's Donation in Kind Program. Seventy-two shipping containers were sent to areas in need, much of it more recently to Papua New Guinea. It has been estimated that 11,000 hours of volunteer work was needed to do this, and the containers, expensive in themselves, were paid for by Rotary Clubs. Rotary International has auspiced the Polio Plus Program to rid the world of polio by 2005. In all, something like $1 billion of investment by Rotary members since 1986 has been given to this very important Polio Plus Program, with great results. There is a suggestion by some that these organisations exist as personal network bodies for their members to advance personal rather than community needs. It is important to recognise, I believe, that such clubs do offer fellowship. It is only natural and it is important. However, these clubs expressly point out that these activities are ancillary to their primary purpose, and those who are familiar with such clubs know the cost of any social activities are borne by members and not the club. Likewise, failure to practise and realise the objectives of a club will lead them to being disbanded. Club codes of conduct for members specifically advocate service and non-discriminatory behaviour. In their submission to the Sheppard inquiry, the district governors of Rotary clearly point out that the current application of GST to the organisation has the potential to create serious damage to Rotary's membership and programs. Rotary, like other community organisations such as Apex and Lions, is generally funded by the generosity of its membership and by solid work by the members on fundraising projects. Seldom do these organisations apply for government grants as most charities in Australia do. Many of the activities and services performed by Lions, Rotary and Apex are the very activities traditionally performed by government agencies. The public funds these organisations do receive generally lead to manifold returns well beyond the initial government outlay.So where does this leave us? First and foremost, the fact that community service organisations like Rotary, Lions, Apex and others are lumped in with community service, not-for-profit bodies is a historical legacy, out of date, and clearly is out of order. The breadth and scope of the former have long outstripped the latter bodies. As I mentioned earlier, this historical anomaly did not warrant too much attention because these organisations did not attract a tax liability. They now do, and this is unfair.Secondly, a definition and classification of a charity should formally recognise the realities of modern day community service organisations and the way they operate. They should be encouraged and rewarded for their community service, not taxed for it. Lions Australia proposes a definition which takes into account the points I have raised. It is similar to comments made by Rotary in its submission to the Sheppard inquiry. I encourage all members to visit the Sheppard inquiry web site in order to read the submissions made by a whole host of service organisations throughout Australia. Lions suggests a definition termed `approved community service organisation', which is deemed to imply an organisation which is: -non-profit -conducted for altruistic community benefit -subject to lodgement of detailed financial statements -payments to which attract tax deductibility subject to the monies so paid being expended (a) by way of payment for the relief of poverty, the needs of the aged, the relief of sickness or the release of distress or (b) by way of a payment in connection with the conduct of an `approved project'-being an organisation governed on a National or State(s) basis -and in respect of which payments attracting tax deductibility are made only to the principal governing Board of the organisation. -For the purposes of the definition it is suggested that `an approved project' be deemed to mean a project adopted by any properly convened Convention or General Meeting of the organisation and which is in furtherance of the objects of that organisation. It is further submitted by Lions `that the recognition of approved community service organisations should be of considerable public benefit'.Last week the farce that is the GST on service clubs such as Rotary went from stupid to ridiculous. Local Rotarians were astounded when a visiting group of their Rotary colleagues from the United States hit the proverbial GST brick wall when they arrived in Australia. Rotary was forced to pay, under severe protest I may add, a $420 bill to get a package through customs. It was not classified as import duty or anything of the like; it was classified GST. The package contained Rotary documentation and promotional material to be used by the group study exchange team from Miami. It was a source of acute embarrassment for the Rotary hosts who, despite their strong protests, were forced to pay the GST. A somewhat public brawl ensued, again highlighting the pitfalls of the GST—that slow-burning GST. Rotary district governor Tony Hennessy summed up the situation in my local newspaper, the daily Advocate:For reasons impossible to understand, Customs has taken the box sent ahead and decided it has to have $420 to cover GST. Mr Hennessy went on to say: We—that is, Rotary—have already had a hell of a time with the GST. Apparently the GST was charged on the perceived value of the goods in the package. I ask honourable members to remember that the package contained Rotary documents and promotional material for what is essentially a goodwill visit. Unfortunately, there is little goodwill for the GST. Rotary may have lost the battle, but the war over the GST is not over, as we see daily in our communities right throughout this country.The Prime Minister was right to ask individual Australians and corporate Australia to go about their daily works and consider those less fortunate in this country and elsewhere. He asked people to increase their philanthropy. Many people have taken up this cause, although we well know that more and more people in personal circumstances are finding it more difficult. This is the year that celebrates volunteers and volunteerism, and many of these volunteers are members of these community service organisations. Tonight I have highlighted Rotary, Lions and Apex, but there are many more. Yet for their efforts in volunteerism, their fellowship and their belief that they can gain and give value because of service they are actually taxed; volunteerism is taxed. This government has an opportunity, albeit very late, to take into account the changing nature and structure of services that are provided by not-for-profit organisations outside the public service. We can do this by ensuring that their subscriptions are not taxed—that is, their volunteerism is not taxed—and that the funds they raise and the services they provide are not taxed. The Sheppard inquiry is going about its business and has received many dozens of submissions. I think it is very important that we in this House recognise the good work of these community organisations. We hope the government takes good note of these submissions, stops taxing volunteerism in this country and encourages people to set out to serve others. After all, that is the one abiding hallmark of these community service organisations.20:46:0025040Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Debates on the appropriation bill traditionally allow for a wide-ranging assessment of government policy program initiatives and how these impact on honourable members' local communities and regions. I am obviously more than pleased to have a chance to contribute to this debate. First I will speak about two projects which are of enormous importance to the Illawarra region and will impact favourably on the electorates of Throsby, Cunningham, Gilmore and Hughes. For many years Australia has debated the opportunity of using technology allowing high-speed rail travel. Recently the Howard government knocked out of the park the possibility of that being established by refusing to continue with the high-speed rail link between Sydney and Canberra. The government claims that it had its reasons, including the fact that such a development would require a huge financial contribution of public moneys. As usual, though, while the Howard government has procrastinated the high-speed rail link continues to gather momentum and has undergone a serious assessment by the New South Wales Labor government. I speak of course of the MagLev proposal, which bid for the initial Sydney to Canberra link and was rejected by the Howard government during its questionable tendering process. The Labor opposition called for a Senate inquiry into the tender process, but the government rejected even this by teaming up with their political partners, the Australian Democrats—the harlots of the Australian political system. When it comes to building the nation's transport infrastructure it always falls to the Australian Labor Party to carry forward the initiatives. Labor's policy on establishing a national infrastructure council to look at the medium- to long-term infrastructure needs of Australia stands in stark contrast with the narrow, pork-barrel approach of the current government, which you would appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker Gash. The MagLev proposal, currently the subject of feasibility studies funded by the New South Wales government, involves a direct rail link between Sydney and Wollongong, with a deviation to the west linking it further with the growing community of Campbelltown. I am extremely pleased that the proposal will have a key concentration in my own electorate, through development of a park and commuter centre at Dapto. Commuter travel time from Dapto to Sydney will be just 28 minutes. At present, despite initiatives to electrify a huge remaining portion of the south coast rail line from Dapto to Kiama, the daily train snail through the Illawarra is a painful couple of hours. Too many of the region's commuters spend too much of their lives travelling from home to work. This high speed link will vastly improve their lives. The initial MagLev bid, which the Howard government killed in favour of a stale, conventional rail link between Sydney and Canberra, galvanised the region's community, who were let down bitterly by this government. No matter how hard this government might try to trample on the ideas of the Illawarra, the MagLev proposal is back on the table. They cannot keep a good idea down for long. Indeed, while the Howard government continue to tinker with conventional technology prospects for travel, other major countries are investing in the MagLev idea very rapidly. Links are being developed in Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States. Thyssen Transrapid, MagLev's proponents, have recently concluded a deal with China to construct a 40-kilometre link between Shanghai and the new Pudong airport before the end of next year. In Australia, recent media reports indicate other state governments are becoming increasingly attracted to the MagLev concept of state-of-the-art technology moving thousands of commuters from destination to destination at safe, high speed. It should be remembered that the fascination and appreciation of what is possible started in the Illawarra. I am quietly confident that the current feasibility studies being funded by the New South Wales Labor government will clearly show a viable link with great economic and investment opportunities for the Illawarra region. The social dividends for my region are exciting. Meanwhile, the Howard government and its Illawarra representatives, the honourable members for Gilmore and Hughes, can remain steadfastly locked in a travel time warp similar to that of the horse and buggy era.The other major project I want to mention is the proposal to establish a new container terminal at the port of Port Kembla in the heart of my electorate. This proposal has not gained the usual publicity that I personally think it deserves. Although understanding why, without seeking to breach or endanger any kind of delicate negotiations, I still believe the major planks need highlighting. Like the MagLev proposal I have briefly mentioned, the new container terminal has enormous economic potential for the Illawarra. The port of Port Kembla has grown in significance since the early 1980s. With the cooperation of every New South Wales Labor government since Wran and the Labor governments of Hawke and Keating, the port has developed into a real jewel in the crown. That status was recognised last year with the Port Kembla Port Corporation—so ably led by its chief executive officer, Mr Phil McGavin, and his team—being awarded Australian Port of the Year at the annual Australian Shipping and Transport Awards in November last year. This prestigious award settles the fact that Port Kembla can mix it with the best major ports in Australia.However, the port of Port Kembla needs to further enhance its facilities and capabilities to realise a potential that is indeed incredible. Transport links by rail and road have improved over the last two decades, but more needs to be done. The establishment of a new container terminal is just the right tonic. The economic benefits are immense. They include more ship visits at a port that already attracts over 500 each year, construction jobs, operational and administrative services employment, 3,000 indirect job opportunities and an injection of over $300 million additionally into the Illawarra economy. Of course, there is also the capital investment that adjoins container terminals worth millions.I have formally written to the New South Wales Premier on this project. He was generous enough to let me know recently that his government was indeed considering the project seriously. It is currently the subject of rigorous assessment by officials in the New South Wales Department of State and Regional Development. I have also raised the project's significance with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. There is a need for modest government assistance by both the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments. I have also raised the project with my regional colleagues. This project has so many benefits that it deserves bipartisan political support. Port Kembla has undergone a tremendous revival, and its winning of the Australian Port of the Year award is but one indicator. Last year the port went through a major trial of unloading new motor vehicles on the multipurpose berth. The first stage of the trial involved unloading 1,000 motor vehicles. The second stage, which concluded late last year, involved a further 9,000 vehicles and also included an additional 11 shipping vessels. The trial concluded so well—on time and on budget—that the multipurpose berth will be used as a major unloading facility for motor vehicle imports.I am extraordinarily proud of the port of Port Kembla. It is remarkable in terms of its natural assets as one of the east coast's unique deep-sea ports and the development of key infrastructure making it a key part of the region's economy. These two projects show clearly how the Illawarra is constantly trying to diversify its economy away from a dependency on coal and steel, although both are major and important industries in their own right for the region. I again urge the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments to consider the benefits of this project for the port of Port Kembla. It is modest financial assistance. The potential for the region is unchallenged. However, I must say, Madam Deputy Speaker Gash—and I know you would appreciate this—that without a replacement road for Macquarie Pass such as Caloola Pass, the port of Port Kembla will not reach its full potential. I have always supported this proposal, so I am looking for wider support which I know all regional members will give for a replacement road for Macquarie Pass so that we can have that road infrastructure into the port of Port Kembla.I now turn to address a serious dispute involving BHP and the major steel unions and workers over BHP's intention to outsource its maintenance and ancillary services at the Port Kembla plant. The dispute has already cost millions of dollars and lost days of production. It has cost workers their pay, and their families have been forced to tighten the belt. With this dispute snaking its way to serious consequences, the region is losing confidence in BHP's commitment to steel production. The main summary of this current dispute involves BHP seeking to reduce maintenance costs by using, it claims, firms with special expertise and experience to ensure the viability of its steel business. The major steel unions and workers claim BHP's plans will reduce wages, conditions and job security, deunionise the workplace and increase casualisation of the workplace. They also claim that outsourcing is not cost effective or efficient.I have always tried to be balanced when it comes to dealing with BHP and the steel unions. BHP is a major employer and supplier in the Illawarra. Naturally, I wish to see BHP succeed because of this. I know of the efforts of the major steel unions and workers over the last two decades, which have greatly improved production and the cost-effectiveness of steel production at the Port Kembla plant. There was a time when relations between BHP and the steel unions in the Illawarra region was, to say the least, poisonous. I fear we are heading back to those days. We must not and we cannot.In this dispute, having considered all the arguments, I must side with the workers. I do not believe that BHP will gain anything from outsourcing its maintenance and ancillary services. The only result I can see so far is the demoralisation of an excellent work force, which even BHP management concedes is great at the work it does. I am not unconvinced that BHP does not wish to engage in a little industrial punch-up with the steel unions. There has been an unfortunate change in BHP's industrial relations policy in the past 12 months. It is staking the ground where once Rio Tinto used to walk.This weekend the Australian Financial Review published an interesting piece on the `peace deal' between the ACTU and its affiliate CFMEU with Rio Tinto's management in the coal industry. BHP must not go down this path of provoking industrial mayhem. Outsourcing is a popular outcome for the bean counters in Melbourne, but is there really any confidence at all in what these management/accountant types predict? We have seen countless examples of outsourced maintenance services and the ultimate damage it can do. We have seen workers killed by gas explosions in Victoria because of maintenance services that were outsourced. We have seen the Howard government outsource information technology which was claimed to save the Commonwealth hundreds of millions of dollars. It has cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, as recent reports have shown. My colleague, the honourable member for Cunningham and shadow minister for defence, regularly informs us on this side of his discoveries of outsourcing consequences in his portfolio area. If I recall, he even made this point to BHP management last year when they called Illawarra MPs to a meeting to explain what this outsourcing proposal meant, while hastening to add that no final decision on the issue had been made by them. Whether BHP likes it or not, this dispute is about much wider issues. It goes directly to the security of workers and their families. Workers everywhere in Australia fear for their jobs. Last week the government tried again to introduce changes to unfair dismissal laws to make it much easier to sack employees. This policy approach does nothing to reassure workers.Workers at BHP's Port Kembla plant do a fine job—a point BHP management concedes. There are solutions to this dispute but it requires goodwill and good faith. Workers at BHP have shown in the past their willingness to engage in negotiation to ensure the viability of their workplace. It is in their own interests. It adds up to a job, an income and some security. BHP need not pick this fight. It is a fight not just involving over 800 workers or the major steal unions; joined with them are their families and the regional community. BHP is pessimistic primarily because the government does not have an industry policy to speak of. This continued hands-off policy approach will ensure the wind-down of steel production in Australia. Labor's approach is different. The Hawke government in 1983 saved the pullout of steel production by adopting and implementing a steel plan. A Beazley government will work with industry, like steel, providing necessary assistance but with an obligation to the industry to meet specific targets for employment, investment and exports. This is the approach industry needs. It is the industry policy Australia cannot continue to do without. On Friday, my colleague the honourable member for Cunningham and I hosted a very successful visit to the Illawarra by the shadow minister for Aged Care, Senator Chris Evans. Aged care is one of the burning issues in the electorate of every honourable member in this place. It is an issue too long neglected by the Howard government. Australia's elderly people deserve much better treatment and access to the services they need. In the Illawarra region, we suffer a substantial nursing home and hostel bed shortage. The government's own targets for bed provision have not been met. Indeed, they have gone backwards. They have slipped off their own target. Labor's aged plan addresses five key points. None of them have been done by the Howard government, and particularly its responsible—or irresponsible—minister. These policies were addressed by Senator Evans on Friday in Wollongong in meetings with aged care consumers and aged care providers. They have been received quite positively. Let me outline briefly what the policy is: establishing a national benchmark of care. Older Australians deserve nothing less. For the first time, a clear set of care standards will cover services ranging from nursing to nutrition. Residents and their families will know what care they can expect to receive. Providers will know what is expected of them in return for their financial assistance and accreditation approval. To provide high-quality care, you must ensure there is enough staff with skills, experience and commitment. At the moment, there are no minimum staffing levels; nursing staff are stressed and frustrated; they are not paid adequately; they are leaving the industry in droves; care is nose diving. There will be more surprise inspections of nursing homes and hostels. No longer will nursing homes sink without trace in the national system. All will be accountable. Every nursing home and hostel will be inspected at least once a year. No warning will be given. Inspections will occur at any time of the day or night. Not one surprise inspection has been undertaken by this government in the last two years. 9V5Pyne, Chris, MPDH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—You should be ashamed of yourselves. It is why we see appalling incidents such as the kerosene baths and elderly residents with bedsores. An aged care ombudsman will be created, ensuring that complaints by families and residents are investigated without delay. There are more complaints in regard to the government's compliance resolution scheme than there are actual resolutions. It is a revolving door where nothing is ever finished or finalised. It is frustrating and inadequate. Complaints and concerns need to be resolved quickly, and a line in the sand must be drawn and must be drawn now. We will do that. There is no place for substandard nursing homes or hostel care in Australia. Labor will introduce tougher penalties to ensure that poor homes quickly meet quality care standards. If nursing homes and hostels cannot meet the standards, there is no place for them in aged care provision. Why should those substandard places survive and receive funding while others try to maintain a decent standard of care? That is what we are committed to on this side of the House—a decent standard of care for elderly Australians—not kerosene baths, as my colleague said. Older Australians are impressed with Labor's aged care policy. It certainly received resounding applause and support from aged care consumers and providers from the Illawarra last Friday.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPDH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—Aged care will be a key issue at the next election, like health, education, job creation, road funding, petrol prices—and I suppose kerosene prices too. We will keep them down so that you will not be able to bathe the elderly in kerosene anymore.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPDH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—The distinct policy records of the government and the opposition will be before the people. The choices will be clear and the electorate will make their judgment. I am quietly confident that the choice will settle with the Australian Labor Party and the election of a Beazley Labor government. It amazes me that anyone from the other side could come into this chamber and support kerosene baths for the elderly. We will throw that at you every day of the election campaign.9V5Pyne, Chris, MP10000Mossfield, Frank (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! I call the member for Sturt to order.DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—We will throw at you that you bathed the elderly of Australia in kerosene. You were content to have them there with bedsores and bedridden. Where these people wanted compassion, care and understanding, all that you on that side could offer them was kerosene baths. You should be ashamed of yourselves and hang your head in shame.Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I call both sides to order. I will not allow that sort of interjection to continue, if people think that is going to be the order of the evening.21:06:0025045Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Last week when Prime Minister John Howard announced his changes on high petrol taxes, I remembered a speech by Margaret Thatcher at the Conservative Party conference in Brighton on 10 October 1980 when, as British Prime Minister, she said: To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catch-phrase, the U-turn, I have only this to say to you. `You turn if you want; the lady's not for turning.'Many of us in the ALP recall the high regard the member for Bennelong held for Prime Minister Thatcher. Now Prime Minister Howard is for turning as Australian voters express their anger about his government's incisive policies, unjust taxes, inflated costs, meagre services and $300.7 billion deficit. According to the Sydney Morning Herald last Saturday, `If the December quarter figures return negative growth, and this is followed up by a further contraction in the March quarter, Australia will have technically fallen into a recession.' Don Harding and Matt Hammill of the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research issued a survey titled Monitoring the GST dated 4 December 2000. In their overview, they stated among other things: Respondents in higher income groups were more likely to report a full understanding of the tax changes than in the low to middle income groups. Also those retired, unemployed and trade persons were the occupations most likely to have no understanding of the tax changes for either personal circumstances or the economy as a whole. As with all new ideas, particularly with the introduction of complex tax changes, there is always a honeymoon period. Now that the GST has been put to work, this honeymoon period is clearly heading for a divorce. If the Harding and Hammill report is correct, I suspect that millions of Australians have discovered that any government that thinks it can tax to please by adding 10 per cent to their necessities in life had better think again. This was clearly demonstrated by Australian voters in the West Australian and Queensland state elections recently. On the front page of the Sunday Telegraph on 5 November last appeared a headline, `Profits Dive, GST wounds thousands of businesses'. The article quoted Morgan and Banks and stated that, `94 per cent of businesses nationwide believed their profits had suffered.' The report went on to quote Labor's shadow Community Services Minister, Wayne Swan, as saying: ... price rises had outstripped the compensation offered to pensioners and allowance recipients. This will be widened by March next year, when further price increases filter through and the Howard government withdraws half the 4 PER CENT increase.Thousands of Australians have exhorted the Howard government about the pain his policy is inflicting on many of them, but he has failed to hear the cries of low wage earners and pensioners. In my electorate of Lowe live many pensioners and low wage earners struggling to maintain some dignity in their lives. There are many businesses who by law are now unpaid tax collectors for the Howard-Costello government. Many of these businesses have had to find thousands of additional dollars to implement the coalition's goods and services tax according to the procedures.Many of my constituents have been badly hurt by this government. These small businesspeople are important creators of wealth for the Australian economy. They are the stakeholders who form the backbone of our economy, the trade persons, veterinarians, chemists, home services providers, garage owners and many others who are under constant pressure in many ways from large corporations and uncaring governments. Many of these small businesses do not have access to large slabs of capital and are unable to retain highly paid lobbyists to gain tax concessions from the Howard government. These small businesses are expected to make their mark in the new global economy to compete with large, greedy corporations, like the bank oligopoly, who force ordinary people to struggle and who seem to have the ear of the Howard-Costello government. As with its tax policy, this government has failed small business—the stakeholders of our economy—as it continues to make laws to favour large corporations. In the USA huge public resources are being used to continually subsidise the performance of private capital interests. At Maryland University, from the Department of Kinesiology—a science which investigates and analyses human motion—Mr Michael Friedman and Professor Daniel Mason recently conducted in-depth research using stakeholder theory. Mr Michael Friedman has researched and produced a brilliant thesis entitled `A Stakeholder Approach to the Issue of Public Subsidisation of Sports Facility Construction'. Whilst the title gives the impression of one particular type of activity, his work has broad application in using stakeholder theory across the entire framework of public policy evaluation and implementation.Through Friedman's scientific analysis we see more clearly the process used by stakeholders to achieve a positive outcome. Stakeholders as applied to our situation include politicians like us and our constituency. Friedman explains how particular stakeholder groups assemble their cases and how people who are not initially involved in the public issues slowly become active and crucial participants in the process. The insight he gives us into the methods used is extremely valuable to all governments. The application of stakeholder theory provides all of us with a more efficient method of understanding and analysing impacts.In the case of the Howard-Costello government and its supporters, we see the disastrous results associated with their implementation of the GST, a cost unevenly carried by many in its implementation and operation. The real cost of their regressive 10 per cent tax is now beginning to reveal itself to every Australian in one way or another. Had this government's approach to the implementation of a new tax system been conducted in an intellectually honest and open manner, a lot of unfair consequences could have been avoided. After all, the government, in its arrogance, is still grappling with the unintended consequences of trusts just to make this very point. What about unintended consequences of a tight budget? People have only to mention roll back, but roll back is exactly what Howard has been forced into. Moreover, had the Howard government intellectually applied the scientific application of Friedman's stakeholder theory and used a wider range of consultation and understanding, a positive rather than negative outcome might have been achieved. The Australian Labor Party has consistently voted against the GST because it indiscriminately taxes the poor and lowly paid citizens of our country. Labor has constantly reminded Australians that, in a market economy, a regressive 10 per cent tax on goods and services will, over time, bite into the surplus of workers and small businesses with little capital. These are our citizens who do not earn large slabs of income because they basically have only their labour to sell. It is for this reason that a Labor government must apply better and fairer methods to further reduce the regressive factor inherent in this new tax system. We must ease the tax burden for low income earners a great deal further.What will the coalition do to protect the low income earners of Australia? If Australia is controlled by a bunch of oligarchies, sitting around the table with them will be the Howard-Anderson-Costello government. Their one-eyed, uninformed perspective is to further redesign this already failing tax system. We have already seen the disastrous way this government is implementing the Ralph report.Conservatives will never run a tax system equitably. We are again discovering that the big end of town pay the least possible taxes. Remember the education funding fiasco when Parramatta State High School received $4,000 and the private Kings College just up the road with their multimillion dollars in assets received more than $1 million? The government's propaganda machine is working overtime to convince everyone that it is good for the country. Services to the ordinary Australian battler will be cut more whilst public services to the oligarchies will continue to enjoy the best of benefits. We now approach the new election. It is time to carefully reflect on this Howard government's second term in office. It is time to ask these questions. Why haven't they kept their premises? Why hasn't their new tax system delivered a better quality of life for all Australian citizens? Why aren't ordinary Australians benefiting from the new taxation system? Why do they now have less money left over from their weekly wages? Why are people who are living on pensions and saved income finding they have less money left over? Why are small businesspeople earning less real income? Why are people constantly dissatisfied when they purchase a tank of petrol for their car and pay an additional 10 per cent GST? The former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who is still very popular amongst many conservatives in this country, including the member for Sturt, was reported in Britain's Sunday Times on 3 May 1981 as saying, `Economics are the method; the object is to change the soul.' What sort of biblical statement is that? If the Liberal-National conservatives are out to change the soul of Australia, then we should expect a more compassionate approach from them with their GST. The Liberal Party's conservative leader, Prime Minister Howard, may well use the same approach as he decides the date for the next federal election. Meanwhile, we are all awaiting the outcome of the next business activity statement. This leads me to Australia's foreign debt. It has increased to $300.7 billion, as I mentioned earlier.83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs Hoare—It is an international disgrace.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—The member for Charlton is right, it is an international disgrace. This is equivalent to $16,000 for every man, woman and child and represents a debt servicing ratio of 9.6 per cent. Moreover, the value of our Australian currency continues to be low, putting pressure on all our imports, including petrol. I have recently been made aware that in late April 2001 a meeting will be held in Quebec City, Canada to draft a treaty for the creation of a North American common market. If the reported 34 leaders attending this conference adopt their draft treaty, it will be an extension of two earlier agreements, the first signed between former Canadian Prime Minister Mulrooney and former US President Ronald Reagan in 1989 called the Free Trade Agreement and the second agreement signed between former US President George Bush and Mexico's former President Carlos Salinas called the North American Free Trade Agreement—NAFTA—which came into effect on 1 January 1994. A union that would integrate the economies of its partners to include the free movement of labour and capital is exactly what President Vincente Fox Quesada seems to have been advocating ever since he won the recent Mexican election. It has also been reported that to date neither the USA nor the Canadian administrations have rejected his advances.If we are to use the example of the European Common Market, a successful proposal for the creation of a North American common market may happen, but it has still a long way to go. However, for leaders to canvass such a move will have definite implications for Australia's national interest. With the North American common market comes a common currency. It would mean that a Canadian citizen would have free and unfettered movement with capital and labour into the USA and Mexico. It would mean that US capital and labour could move to anywhere in Mexico and Canada and the same opportunities would exist for Mexican citizens. It would mean changes in population movement and natural resources and infrastructure would be affected, in both positive and negative ways. Constitutions and laws would also be affected. In fact, George Ball, a former undersecretary of state, in his 1968 book entitled The Discipline of Power, wrote: Sooner or later, commercial imperatives will bring about free movement of all goods back and forth across our long border; and when that occurs, or even before it does, it will become unmistakably clear that countries with economies so inextricably intertwined must also have free movement of the other vital factors of production-capital, services and labour. The result will inevitably be substantial economic integration, which will require for its full realisation a progressively expanding area of common political decision.A year later, in 1969, we saw the first men on the moon. We have subsequently seen the creation of modern technology, such as laptop computing and genetic mapping of the human body. The USA has also invented the fastest growing securities marketplace in the world, the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations, NASDAQ.Some in this House will remember the way past governments sat on their behinds and bemoaned the beginning of the European Union. I remember some people saying that Britain had stabbed her child in the back. It did not take us long to see reality and we proceeded to deal with the changed circumstances. New markets with Japan, China, Korea and other important nations were established. And, with the global economic revolution taking place today, the need to examine deeper relationships with our neighbours in the Indian region and the Pacific rim should be an urgent exercise for this parliament.We are observing the growth of the European Union from 28 countries into states with an estimated population of approximately 500 million people. Its border will stretch from the Atlantic Ocean and the Baltic Sea to the margins of the Middle East. We will see an enormous impact on trading countries like Canada and Australia. Some are already suggesting that the European Union will become the world's largest common market in this our 21st century. However, the North American nations will not give up their position easily, and Japan, China and other emerging nations in our region will require us to work much harder to achieve positive outcomes. The Australian Labor Party, under the strong and compassionate leadership of the Hon. Kim Beazley, will do just that. We will ensure that all Australians benefit from the implementation of our government's policies, not just the few. Before concluding this speech on the appropriation bills, I could not let the opportunity pass without once again bringing to the attention of the government the need to make arrangements to build a second airport in Sydney. I am pleased to see that the member for Bradfield is here tonight. He has been a passionate advocate for a second airport in Sydney. As I have said previously in the chamber, he has done a good job on the Sydney Airport Community Forum to bring those concerns of the Sydney Airport Community Forum to the government. Unfortunately, he has failed, not by his own efforts but by the intransigence of the Howard government, which is hell bent on committing one of the most dishonest acts on the people of Sydney—selling the lease on Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and grabbing the filthy lucre and running without any contemporaneous decision to construct a second airport. I am running a campaign. I have spoken four times already since we returned this year and asked a stack of questions on the Notice Paper about this very issue. The government are hell bent on privatising Sydney airport without really ever having a commitment to seeing a second airport built. I think that is horrendous, because they are allowing the expansion of Bankstown airport to be the overflow airport for Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. That is a monumental betrayal of the commitments that were led by the Hon. John Sharp, the then minister, in 1996 when he spoke on the airports bill, along with all of the other government members who participated in that debate, and along with the explanatory memorandum that accompanied that legislation that went before the parliament. There was a clear understanding that a second airport would be built, but only when the proponent for the 50-year lease for Sydney airport bought that airport and made arrangements to build a second airport. That is not happening and the government should be using some of this money to make sure we get a second airport at Badgerys Creek. (Time expired)21:26:0025049Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00— I am pleased to be able to rise tonight to speak on these appropriation bills—Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2000-2001, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2000-2001 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2000-2001—and in particular to support the amendment moved by my colleague and Labor spokesperson on finance and administration, the member for Melbourne. These three bills comprise the additional estimates for 2000-01 for annual appropriations and seek total additional appropriations of nearly $2.58 billion. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) appropriates money for the ordinary annual services of government. The major additional appropriations in this bill include moneys to fund shortfalls in the current budget for the Department of Defence. No wonder the former minister has jumped ship. His past ineptitude has been highlighted by this bill. This bill also includes an extra $223 million appropriated to the Department of Health and Aged Care, an additional $216.5 million to Treasury, $75.4 million to Finance and Administration, $3.7 million to the Native Title Tribunal, and $1.9 million to the ABC. That is a bit of a drop in the ocean. I noticed that Jonathan Shier has actually asked for $40 million. I am not sure whether he is going to be too happy about that. It is not even going to pay for one-sixth of the executive salaries that he wants to pay. An amount of $5.9 million is being appropriated to the SBS, $18.7 million to the Australian Greenhouse Office, $10.8 million to the lawful and orderly entry and stay of people outcome of the Immigration and Multicultural Affairs portfolio, and $61 million to the Transport and Regional Services portfolio.In speaking to this bill, I want to pick up on a couple of the areas I have just mentioned. As to the $18.7 million appropriated to the Australian Greenhouse Office, I do not think this has been a very well publicised government program. I am fairly well versed on issues of the environment. I had to find the web site of the Australian Greenhouse Office to find out exactly what it was, when it came about and how it came about. What I found was fairly interesting. I will summarise a piece from that web page for you. It states:The Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) was established as a separate agency within the environment portfolio to provide a whole of government approach to greenhouse matters. It continues: The AGO is responsible for the coordination of domestic climate change policy and the delivery of Commonwealth programs and provides a central point of contact for stakeholder groups. Last year, following the May budget and the release of the 1998 national greenhouse gas inventory figures, it was becoming fairly obvious that there was no way Australia was going to meet the Kyoto target commitment to constrain emissions growth to 108 per cent over the 1990 level. Then in November last year the Senate committee's report into climate change really put the government on notice. At this time our shadow spokesperson, Senator Nick Bolkus, said that the government had comprehensively failed to deliver a responsible and credible response to the challenge presented by global climate change. He said that we have had five wasted years on greenhouse policy. That is why I found it fairly interesting that in these appropriation bills the government has found $18.7 million for the Australian Greenhouse Office.In May last year the minister, Senator Hill, said that the government had committed almost $1 billion to greenhouse gas reduction programs over the next five years. However, five years after the election of the first Howard government, the Senate committee has recommended immediate action for the government to take. I will read out some of these recommendations. One was that the Commonwealth government reiterate its support for the IPCC findings and establish an awareness-raising campaign about climate change. Another was that the Commonwealth undertake an assessment of the economic, social and environmental costs of a failure to adequately address climate change. It recommended that some economic modelling be done, including on the cost of failure to take action; that the Australian government seek to ensure the integrity of the protocols with the adoption of firm sanctions for non-compliance and provisions for assistance for those falling behind in their commitments; and that Australia should take a leadership role in negotiations with a view to moving through Australia's treaty making process in a timely manner to achieve gratification of the Kyoto protocol. The report goes on to talk about leadership roles, a phased introduction of a national emissions trading system, directing the old economy on a path to meet Australia's Kyoto target, and applying more stringent national power generation emission standards. And it goes on. As I said, those recommendations were really a damning report card on this government's environment policy. Five years after the commitment of $1 billion we still do not see a real lot happening. I turn to the appropriation of $3.7 million for the Native Title Tribunal. Some might ask why we need to keep appropriating money for the Native Title Tribunal. I think one of the answers to that question was given today. I attended a press conference with the Miriuwung and Gajerrong people from the Kimberley area and Galarrwuy Yunupingu, who is the chairman of the Northern Land Council. They outlined the processes they have had to go through during their native title claim on the lands in that Kimberley area. The cost of that process currently stands at $10 million. When the owners of that land first lodged their native title claim back in 1994, we had in place the original Native Title Act, enacted by the Keating government. In 1998, when the claim went to the Federal Court, Justice Lee found that the Miriuwung and the Gajerrong people had substantial native title rights equivalent to exclusive possession to almost all the land claimed and also that it is very difficult to extinguish or wipe out native title. However, at that stage we had the Court Liberal government in power in Western Australia, where most of these lands are situated. Some of the lands extend over the Dutch-defined borders. The conservative government in the north and the west appealed the native title decision handed down by Justice Lee in the Federal Court. That appeal was won by those two conservative governments 2:1, and now these people find themselves in the High Court with a case that is expected to last at least two weeks. They have every confidence—and I have every confidence—that they will win that case but, as I said, at this stage those costs stand at $10 million and they will increase every day of that High Court hearing.I read an article in the Sydney Morning Herald recently about Peter Yu, who, it said, is the ideal Kimberley leader. The article is basically about Peter's career and his fight for the rights of his people. It states:Like many other indigenous activists, Yu is familiar with flak and pressure. Lately, he has been criticised in his communities for not achieving enough. He says that the Federal Government's Wik amendments to the Native Title Act have made it very hard to achieve wins over land. `We've been locked into a very litigious area as a result of the 10-point plan and it's rendered a lot of the representative bodies and land councils ineffectual because the Howard Government has squeezed very tightly. It's having a very real impact in the community.'That is why the government keeps needing to find more money to fund the Native Title Tribunal. The government's 10-point plan, the watering down of the original Native Title Act, has made it very difficult to process native title claims and very litigious, as Peter Yu said. Also in these appropriation bills we see a further $216.5 million for the bungled implementation of the GST. The reason I mention this immediately after native title considerations is that I think we can all imagine where $216.5 million might go in the areas of Aboriginal health, Aboriginal education and Aboriginal housing. How far could $216.5 million go to enable some of the people who live in those more remote communities across Australia access to at least the basic standard of living that the rest of us enjoy? Yet what do we see in these appropriation bills? We see that $216.5 million has been wasted on the bungled implementation of the GST.Also, $1.9 million has been appropriated for the ABC. As I mentioned, Jonathan Shier wanted $40 million. That is not going to put him in very good stead with the government that has appointed him. This is an appropriation of $1.9 million for the ABC, which has had $67 million ripped out of it over the past five years by this government. I will mention one of the interesting comments I noticed when I was researching funding for the ABC—our national public broadcaster, our independent broadcaster, a public broadcaster which every Australian has the right to rely on for information and for entertainment, no matter where they live throughout the country. It has had $67 million cut out of it.In this appropriation bill it is getting $1.9 million back. By comparison, the BBC receives 10 times the funding of the ABC. The BBC in the UK has had an injection of more than $1 billion, twice the ABC's whole budget in one year, to make more programs. I think we are seeing the result of that here with our local ABC. Our national broadcaster is being cut to the bone. We are seeing the results of the injection of funds into the UK national broadcaster; we are having to buy its programs because we do not have the funding within our own country provided by our own government to produce our own local content. That is a national disgrace. A Newspoll on the ABC published in the Australian last month found that 82 per cent of Australians think the ABC is doing a good job in providing news and entertainment. More than half of that number think it is doing a very good job. If that is the attitude of the Australian public—the electorate—to the ABC, this government should really be listening. The Prime Minister has claimed he has listened to small business and has done a backflip on the BAS. He has claimed he has listened to motorists and has done a backflip on petrol excise. We call on the Prime Minister to listen to the majority of the electorate and to adequately fund the ABC. I would like to take a moment to emphasise what Labor will do. Labor will provide adequate funding on a triennial basis to ensure that quality is maintained in both the program and service delivery areas as well as ensuring that Australian content levels are maintained at an appropriate level to foster the development of our cultural identity. Where appropriate, Labor will ensure that adequate funding is provided to assist the ABC and SBS with the introduction of digital broadcasting and online technologies. That is another area where this government has failed. It has failed to provide adequate funding for the ABC to move into this new technological era. I would encourage all government members to access our commitment on the ALP web site, where it can be seen. I have been attending Friends of the ABC rallies in my area and I have been pointing this out to them. This is Labor's commitment to the ABC—to our national broadcaster—and we call on the government to at least match it. In speaking about local and quality production within the ABC, some of us would have met a few of the young people involved in the Heywire production—an ABC production which involved giving rural and regional young people a voice. Young people submitted their stories and the finalists had an opportunity to read their stories over the local ABC radio broadcasters throughout the regions. One of my constituents was living in Bonnells Bay in my electorate. She has now moved into the electorate of Dobell, but her mother still works as a doctor in my electorate. 5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis—She has still got a good member. 83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE—And she still has got a very good member. Danielle Lee was a finalist in the Heywire production. I wrote to Danielle after hearing her story. I could picture exactly what she was talking about. Her story was about being in a two-member household with her mother, who was a GP having to go out at all hours of the night to do house calls, to care for sick people, including sick children and frail elderly people, leaving her teenage daughter at home in bed. She was not a young teenager; she was old enough to look after herself. But these were Danielle's thoughts about waking up with mum not being there and then worrying about mum travelling on the road in the dark and worrying about mum attending these houses when she did not know what might be in store for her. These were Danielle's worries. These were the kinds of stories that were produced by our local radio stations right throughout the country, and I am sure many members and senators in this place would have heard their own stories. I heard many other stories when I was driving around the electorate during the summer recess. They were all very good and significant. Finally, I want to mention the $223 million being appropriated for the Health and Aged Care portfolio. I really want to emphasise that $130 million of that has been associated with the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. We must understand that more than half of that Health appropriation is going in to prop up the private health system. It is not going in there to strengthen Medicare—it is going in there to prop up private health insurance. I asked a question on 4 October last year about the cost on an annual basis of the government's 30 per cent private health insurance rebate scheme and the minister has yet to come back to me with an answer. I support the amendments. (Time expired)21:46:0025052Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—It is always a pleasure to speak to appropriation bills in this House and always a pleasure to follow the member for Charlton on the speaking list, particularly when she is wearing her Emily's List badge. Can I say, of course, that it is also a pleasure to be in the House with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, who knows that he has a standing invite to my electorate to come and look at the Point Cook airbase. We are hoping to see him in the electorate of Lalor soon. But I suspect the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence will be relieved to know I am actually not addressing the Point Cook airbase issue during tonight's debate but actually talking about a number of other issues of concern to the community which I serve, most particularly one of the municipalities located within the electorate of Lalor, and that is the city of Wyndham. Before I go into the details of that community's needs, I would like to give the members here some idea of the nature of that community so that they can properly understand the matters which I am going to put. The key to understanding the needs of this area—the city of Wyndham—is to understand the fact that it is an urban growth corridor. If we look, for example, at the 1996 Census statistics it shows us that the municipality has an estimated population of 76,000 persons and that it had grown by 19.4 per cent since the collection of the 1991 Census statistics. If that rate of growth was just being maintained—20 per cent every census period—you would say, `That's an extraordinary rate of growth.' But the rate of growth is actually increasing and so we know that on current projections between 1999 and 2021 the population is expected to increase by a staggering 64 per cent. So we have a community that is growing exponentially in terms of population. What it means when you have such fast growth is that you are necessarily home to a young population. Of course, the best data that we have on this still is the 1996 Census. We can look particularly to the data about the nature of dependency in terms of dependent children ratios in the electorate and the nature of age within the electorate. What we find when we look at those figures is a very young area indeed. Families with dependent children, whether they be two or one-parent families, are 62 per cent of the total population. That compares with 39.9 per cent over the whole area of Melbourne. So the Melbourne average is something less than 40 per cent; the city of Wyndham is at 62 per cent. In addition to it being a community of young families it is a community of home buyers. So some 42.3 per cent of the community is purchasing a home compared with 20.7 per cent across Melbourne overall. So we can see a picture of a young community and families with children seeking to buy their own home.When we look at educational qualifications—once again another indicator which we look to in this place in terms of relative advantage or disadvantage—we find that this is a relatively disadvantaged community. We note that, in terms of the number of people who have no formal qualifications, Wyndham has five per cent more of its residents in that category than the Melbourne metropolitan average. So we can say that we are seeing a community of unskilled or semiskilled workers who are trying to build a life with their young families and are seeking to purchase a home. The pattern of disadvantage is very much reinforced when we look at the income statistics. I will take you to them in some detail because I think they will pay examination. The needs of the community are very starkly revealed when we look at these statistics: 14.4 per cent of the Wyndham community earn between zero and $79 per week; 12 per cent of the Wyndham community earn between $80 and $159 per week; 15.2 per cent of the Wyndham community earn between $160 and $299 per week; and 19.4 per cent of the Wyndham community earn between $300 and $499 per week. Therefore, in total, 61 per cent of the Wyndham community earn less than $500 a week. So I do not think we need to go too much further to say that this is a community of considerable need.We also find that when we look to some more depressing statistics there are some real needs in this community, and those statistics are revealed by the fact that there are a demonstrably higher number, compared with other municipalities, of parents liable to make child support payments, which indicates that there is a mix of blended families in the Wyndham area. We also find some fairly depressing statistics in relation to child abuse. We find, for example, in 1996 in the city of Wyndham there were 10.19 cases of child abuse substantiated per thousand of the population, meaning that it had the second highest rate of all of the western suburbs in Melbourne. As members in this place who have even the most fleeting familiarity with the geography of Melbourne would know, that is comparing the city of Wyndham to the lower income area of the city, not against the higher income area of the city. We also find a community that is struggling in relation to crime. When we look down the categories of crime, we find, for example, that the rate of arson is well above the state average and escalating, the criminal property damage rate is described as significantly high, the residential burglary rate is described as consistently high, thefts from shops are rising, thefts from cars are rising and thefts of bikes are consistently high. So we can say once again this community is home to not only people who allegedly are perpetrators of crime but obviously people who are victims of crime. This municipality is large geographically in metropolitan terms. I understand that it is not at all large in comparison with country municipalities, but it is large by metropolitan standards, and that really represents its location on the urban-rural interface. It covers some 542 square kilometres and actually takes in some rural and agricultural areas. It is 30 kilometres away from the Melbourne GPO by road. It is the sort of community in which the road, rail and bus infrastructure has in no way kept pace with community need. So we have one railway line, two stations with the stations being four kilometres apart. We find even in 1996—and, of course, we have had considerable growth since then—some 38,100 people were serviced by each of those stations. When you actually get to the stations you find that the trains operate at 20-minute intervals. Then you are faced with the question of getting there. The only way of getting there, unless you run private transport, which many people in this community do not, is to catch one of the bus services which were tendered out to the private sector under the former state government. When we look at the details of those services, we find very limited hours of operations. Services offered to residents on weekdays commence between 5.50 a.m. and 6.25 a.m. and finish by 7.46 p.m. Weekend services are fewer and the hours are even more limited, commencing between 7.40 a.m. and 7.56 a.m. and finishing by 6.48 p.m. So, as you can see, on the weekends in particular it is a strictly daytime service, and it is not much better on weekdays.In a community that has those sorts of hallmarks, there are obviously areas of considerable need. I would like to now address two of those areas of need. One is the need for access to justice. I have gone through the crime statistics. I have also gone through the family composition statistics. I have done so because all of that points, if you like, to people in this community who have got very small disposable incomes themselves but who might need legal advice. They might need it because they are accused of a crime. They might need it because they are victims of a crime. They might need it because they are in circumstances of family breakdown and they might need advice on separation questions, child custody and access questions, property questions and the like. Of course, the working people in the city of Wyndham might well need some legal advice in relation to matters that they face in their employment. Clearly, these people cannot walk into and pay for private legal services. So they are highly reliant on the services provided by the Werribee Community Legal Centre, which is really a very strong feature of this community, very well accepted by the community and very highly patronised by the community.So it is with some great concern that I need to raise tonight that the very future of this centre continues to hang under a cloud. This cloud first started gathering on the horizon of the Werribee Community Legal Centre in January 1999 when the state and Commonwealth Attorneys-General released the final report of the review of Victorian community legal centres funding program. This report recommended two things. Firstly, it recommended the regionalisation of community legal centres so that there would be one main centre servicing each Department of Human Services district. The Department of Human Services districts are state defined, but in the case of my electorate of Lalor and this municipality about which I am speaking, the city of Wyndham, it means that we would be subsumed into one geographic area which covered all of the west and some of the north-west of Melbourne. It would be a huge geographic area. Secondly, the report recommended that the services of community legal centres be provided to health-care card holders rather than to anyone else who seeks legal assistance. The two recommendations of that report caused great fear and alarm amongst those in my community who have come to rely upon the services of the Werribee Community Legal Centre. First, they fear that the centre would be closed, that the services would be subsumed into some greater regional centre and that that would cause two problems: firstly, there would be a transport and access problem for the people who needed to go there to get legal advice and, secondly, the centre would lose any connection with the community. So any sense of community ownership of that centre and any sense that young lawyers in the city of Wyndham would want to go down to the local legal centre and volunteer their services would be lost. Another fear that people had was that many who are in need in my community are not health-care card holders. They may, for example, be the non-working spouse of a working husband who is facing circumstances of extreme marital stress, perhaps even facing domestic violence and child abuse issues. That person, by definition, will not be a health-care card holder because they are viewed to be in an income earning family unit, but they might desperately be in need of legal advice. Of course, one does not want to go to the details of cases because of the confidentiality involved, but I am aware that the Werribee Community Legal Service has many cases on its books where it has assisted women who are in precisely that position.It should be noted that, since that report came down, there has been a wondrous development in Victoria and that wondrous development was the election of the Bracks Labor government. The election of the Bracks Labor government changed one part of the equation in relation to this report, because the report was a joint report of the state and Commonwealth attorneys-general. Of course, the identity of the Attorney-General changed upon the election of the Bracks Labor government. The incoming Attorney-General, Mr Rob Hulls, made a commitment prior to the election—a commitment that he has reinforced on many occasions since—that he would not support and the Victorian government would not support the forced amalgamation or closure of any current legal centre.That has meant that we are in a bit of a logjam. We have got this joint Commonwealth-state auspiced report that tells us one thing about the future of legal centres and we have got the state Attorney-General, Mr Hulls, telling us something else. The response of the Commonwealth to that circumstance has been to commence drip-feeding community legal centres in Victoria, including the Werribee Legal Centre, on six-month funding cycles whilst their whole future—all the issues like the big picture of their future; whether they are going to be allowed to stay open and, if so, independently—remains unresolved. The Werribee Legal Centre, for example, is now funded only until the end of this financial year with no guarantee at all that its funding will continue past that, and funding is being doled out in six-monthly lots. So we had one six-monthly lot that took us to 31 December. We have now got another six-monthly lot that takes us to 30 June. Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, I am sure that you would agreed that this is a completely unsatisfactory position. People who work in the centre have got no idea what is going to happen next; the community that supports the centre has got no idea what is going to happen next; the volunteers who have so magnificently supported the centre have got no idea what is going to happen next; and people who are approaching that centre day in and day out for legal assistance do not know if it is going to be there at the time that their case comes to some form of mature state. If you have got a family law case or a personal injuries matter, or even a criminal matter, the time life of that case could well go over six months. So you could walk into the Werribee Legal Centre today for legal advice and not know whether or not it is going to exist when you come around to your court date. I would strongly urge the federal government to remove this cloud of uncertainty, to accept the Victorian position that there should be no forced amalgamations or closures in relation to community legal centres, and to work cooperatively with the Victorian government so that we can move this issue on. In the time remaining, I might just address one other area of need in my community, and that is the area of housing. As I have indicated at the commencement of this contribution to the appropriation debate, Wyndham is a growth area. In being a growing population, the whole question of publicly accessible or available housing has reached really a crisis point. That actually pertains not only to the Office of Housing properties that are made available through the auspices of the state government and the community housing stock but it also pertains to the number of workers who are made available through SAAP—the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program. Members in this place would be aware that that program is joint Commonwealth-state funded, that it is funded in cycles, that in the last cycle there was no growth funding in that Commonwealth-state agreement and, in this cycle, the only real growth has been moneys necessary to compensate the housing sector for the advent of the GST. So in those circumstances, despite the growing need in my community and in the City of Wyndham, we find that there has been no real change on the ground. I have with me the statistics which compare the City of Wyndham to other municipalities in Melbourne's west. I want to be cautious in the use of these statistics, because it is very important for members here to understand that we are comparing disadvantaged with disadvantaged. Even in the comparison of disadvantaged to disadvantaged, we find that the City of Wyndham comes out behind in terms of the number of Office of Housing properties, in terms of the number of properties available through the community housing stock, in terms of the numbers of workers available through the youth section of the SAAP and in terms of the workers available through the families section of the SAAP. So we have a growing community and, by definition, growing need: a young community in which family breakdown, unfortunately, is not uncommon, causing crisis needs for accommodation; a community in which estrangement between families and teenage or even more adult children is not uncommon, causing crisis needs for accommodation; and we find no growth or flexibility at all in terms of what is being provided through the Commonwealth-state agreement in relation to housing. This is in a circumstance where, of course, the private rental market is very tight indeed. So, once again, on the issue of housing—an issue that disproportionately affects a growing community like the City of Wyndham—I would urge the Commonwealth government to do some rethinking and to ensure that over the coming period there is some more money available in that program. We are not asking for money to be redistributed from other areas to the City of Wyndham, because I suspect that one would be only taking from one disadvantaged area to put it into another, but I am asking for the Commonwealth to consider the question of increasing the funding to that program. 22:06:0025056Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—It gives me great pleasure to participate in this appropriation debate and to be following the member for Lalor. It gives me a good opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents and record in the journals of this House the attitudes, feelings and problems being faced by some of the people in my electorate. With this bill, we are appropriating money for government departments and programs—money that has come from the hip pockets and pay packets of ordinary Australians. That places a great responsibility on us as the representatives of ordinary taxpayers in this place to do what is right: to spend their money in the best interests of our nation—a great responsibility indeed. In fact, the appropriation debate is the most fundamental debate that we have in this chamber: how do we spend the money given to us by the taxpayer? How we spend it and what we spend it on is determined by what we see as the role of government. It is a fundamental question of basic principles. Since 1996, we have seen a sea change in the way governments operate. We used to, as a government, support people: Medicare, the Commonwealth dental scheme, public schools and so forth. Increasingly, though, this government has stopped supporting people and is now subsidising multinational companies instead. Despite the rhetoric and the payment method, the 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance is a direct subsidy to the private insurance industry and the money is taken from public hospitals and public health to do it. This is an industry that could not stand on its own two feet in the marketplace. They were unable to provide a service consumers wanted at the price consumers were willing to pay. This is an industry now being propped up by taxpayers who did not want it in the first place. Four Corners a few weeks ago exposed how this government is subsidising multinational drug companies like Pfizer against the express advice of its own advisory board, the PBAC. There has been a shameful dereliction of duty on the part of Minister Wooldridge regarding this issue. He has systematically dismantled the PBAC and its effectiveness. He sacked those who stood up to the industry and who got the outcomes that were favourable to taxpayers. He caved in to industry pressure and put Pat Clear on the committee. What has happened: a blow-out in the budget that has cost taxpayers millions of dollars—millions of dollars of taxpayers' money that could have been spent on any number of better things but has been spent instead on funding huge salary increases for drug company executives. So while millions of dollars of my constituents' money is being doled out to the multinational companies who are now showing record profits, what is happening to my constituents? Many are struggling to make ends meet. The economy is booming—or at least it has been; or so we have been told. It has never looked better. But we do not live in just an economy; we live in a society, a community, a nation, and the economy is only part of that. We saw Richard Court being unceremoniously dumped in Western Australia, despite having a good economy. Why? Because Mr Court may have provided a good economy but he failed to provide a good society. Public schools and public hospitals were underfunded by Mr Court. These public assets are not helped by a good private sector economy, but they are the foundation stones upon which Australian society is built, and governments cannot be allowed to forget that.This is where Mr Court fell down. He built the economy but forgot to build the society in which the economy functions. It is no good having a you-beaut engine if there is no body frame or seats around it to turn it into a car and the tyres are flat. This government has spent all its time working on the engine—spit and polish; meanwhile, the rust is building up, the paint work is fading, the material on the seats is becoming a little frayed and the dash is beginning to crack under the punishing sun. The engine is only part of it. Mr Howard will find it difficult getting it through rego later this year if all he is doing is putting a bit of spac filler over the rust and crossing his fingers, regardless of the condition of the engine.It is also no good having a good engine if you cannot afford petrol to put in the tank. The economy is not the be-all and end-all of society. The sooner governments wake up to this fact, the sooner we can consign the failed experiment called economic rationalism to the dustbin of history. Governments have a role to play in the way our society, our communities, function. That is the government's job. That is why we are here and those who would sell it off or give it away are simply not doing their job properly. Governments are accountable and as representatives of the people in this place we, too, are accountable. Our job, the job of governing, brings with it great responsibility. But those opposite do not want to deal with that. They do not want to face up to their responsibilities. It is far too easy to flog off their responsibility to the private sector and sit back, hands in the air, and say, `It wasn't me. I didn't do it,' when something goes wrong.If the corporate excesses of the 1980s and 1990s have shown us anything, they have shown that the private sector is not necessarily better at running things than the public sector. One only has to witness all the high-flyers who came crashing down, bringing many hardworking families with them. There were lessons to be learnt from that period, but this government has its head buried in the sand. For a Prime Minister who spends all his time looking backwards and none looking forward, I find it remarkable that he can fail to grasp the lessons of yesterday. The same mistakes are being repeated and new ones committed every day. John Howard asks us to be relaxed and comfortable. What he is really asking is whether we want the blindfold or not. There is no more evidence than in the Department of Family and Community Services with Centrelink. This is definitely one department that is not relaxed and comfortable. The social security safety net has been rent with holes since this government came to office, and there are now many who are falling through the cracks. I want to mention a few specific cases I have dealt with recently in my electorate office. The first relates to the preclusion period faced by those who receive compensation payouts and the impact that the GST has had on their lives. There have been multiple cases through my office door regarding this matter, and I have spoken on this subject before. Unfortunately, nothing has been done by the previous minister and I have not heard from the new minister on this subject either. Members would know that, prior to 1 July 2000, the infamous date in Australian history that saw the introduction of the GST, any compensation payout for economic loss was divided by a figure of $422.90 and the result was the number of weeks that people were precluded from claiming Centrelink payments. As part of this government's so-called compensation package, this figure was raised to $543.63, a difference of over $120 per week.The trouble is that, if you began your exclusion period prior to 1 July 2000, you missed out on compensation for the GST. There was no recalculation of this figure on 1 July; the $422.90 stayed. If the $543.63 figure was applied to the outstanding balance at 1 July, then the preclusion period for receiving Centrelink payments would be reduced significantly. The payout figure received by my constituents as a result of their injuries was effectively devalued with the introduction of the GST. Everybody's savings were also devalued. That is why the government put in place certain compensation measures. However, anyone who received the compensation payouts before 1 July and whose compensation period spanned the GST has been penalised. The government believes that anyone who received a compensation payout before 1 July 2000 should live for an extra 16 or 17 weeks on about $120 less per week than those who received their compensation payments before 1 July 2000. This is a piece of logic that escapes me. I believe that the recalculation of the preclusion period post 1 July 2000 should be the first order of business for the new minister, Minister Vanstone.The next issue where government policies have left Centrelink not so relaxed and comfortable is the issue of breaching. Breaching is the formula whereby Centrelink recipients lose all or part of their payments for a range of offences such as failing to attend interviews or failing to declare income. In 1996 when this government came to power there were 113,000 breaches recorded. That figure has been rising dramatically. In 1999-2000, the figure was 490,494. This is an increase of 433 per cent of the number of breaches issued by Centrelink. Of the 490,494 people breached, 188,000 were either not proceeded with or overturned on appeal. Centrelink was wrong in 188,000 or 38 per cent of cases. In 188,000 cases, Centrelink took all or part of the payments for no substantial reason. Some 188,000 people were not very relaxed and comfortable at all. Centrelink is quick to get its claws in and take money off people. Some 490,494 breaches shows us this: take first and ask questions later.In using the term `Centrelink' I am not being critical of the people who have to carry out the government's policy, but quite clearly my criticism is directed at the government itself for allowing these things to develop. However, some of my constituents have not merely been breached. Make a mistake and Centrelink lawyers come out to play, and they play with baseball bats. I had a constituent come through my door last year, a father in his mid 60s in poor health—I know him and his family personally. He had an impeccable record. He originally came from the UK. He had been a high school teacher in the UK. He had gone to New Zealand with his family and had been a high school teacher there. They moved to Australia and he was in receipt of a carer's payment for looking after his son, who suffered from cerebral palsy. This was clearly a battling family that has had major health problems. His wife worked to make ends meet. She received a pay rise. With my constituent's ill health—during this period he suffered heart attacks and had a heart bypass—Centrelink was not informed; there was an oversight. They were not informed that his wife received a wage increase. This resulted in overpayment of some $6,800, which I understand was being repaid at the time that the matter was brought to a head. It also resulted in fraud convictions in the Parramatta magistrate's court. These were charges that were proceeded with despite the recommendation against this action by certain Centrelink staff. This was a good man I have known for a number of years. He was hounded by Centrelink carrying out the government's policy through the courts for a genuine mistake. Centrelink is a one-way street. The myth of mutual obligation has been turned to dust by the cold light of reality. `Mutual' is not in Centrelink's dictionary. It has breached for the most minor transgressions and usually gets it wrong anyhow and will bring out the lawyers and use the courts to pound people into submission. Under this government, the carrot has been given away to the bloke who made the stick bigger.Another issue I want to refer to deals with the qualification tests to obtain a carers payment for a disabled child. There have been two recent cases reported to my electorate office regarding this issue, and I would like to explain to the House the circumstances of one of these cases. It is a case of a young child, Ryan Goswell, who suffers from Smith-Magenis-Syndrome, S-M-S. This is an extremely rare genetic condition where the sufferer is missing a portion of chromosome 17. The test for S-M-S has been around for only a few years. Prior to this the condition was often misdiagnosed as severe autism. Some of the characteristics of S-M-S are hearing impairment, chronic ear infection, eye problems including strabismus and myopia, heart defects and murmurs, curvature of the spine, urinary problems, faecal incontinence, speech delay, development delay, learning disability, mental retardation, hyperactivity, prolonged tantrums, destructive and aggressive behaviour and an almost lethal combination of decreased sensitivity to pain and a proclivity for self-injury. Clearly, with those conditions, 24-hour a day, seven-day a week care and supervision of these children is needed. The Goswells receive respite for one week in four. This still leaves three out of four weeks for which they have to battle on alone. Robert Goswell, the father, is in and out of work as a result of the sheer amount of time required to look after his son. He was on Newstart but has been breached for a number of reasons, all relating to the care of his son. The medical bills are extensive and they keep piling up. Yet for the want of a single tick in a ridiculously narrowly defined Centrelink form, this family is unable to get a carers pension. Children are treated differently from adults in the process of qualifying for a carers payment. For adults there is a test with a sliding scale, and points are added up for the various conditions and the amount of care required. So many points qualify someone for a payment. For a child, however, a medical report form is to be filled out by a doctor. The form requires three ticks in the boxes in part C, which reads:The child's disability or condition includes the following circumstances:the child receives all food and fluids by nasogastric or percutaneous enterogastric tube the child has a tracheostomy the child must use a ventilator for at least 8 hours a day the child is 3 or over and has faecal incontinence the child is 2 or over and cannot stand without support a medical practitioner has certified that the child has a terminal condition for which palliative care has replaced active treatment the child is at least 6 months old and requires personal care on 2 or more occasions between 10pm and 6am each dayTo qualify, Ryan needs ticks in the boxes next to three of these conditions. In this case, because the questions are so narrowly defined, Ryan receives only two ticks—for faecal incontinence and for care more than twice a night. As you can see, the form does not take into account any of the reasons the Goswells should be in receipt of a carers payment. The form is far too narrowly defined to be of any real use. Of course when Ryan reaches the age of 18, in about nine years time—goodness knows how the family will be at that point—he will qualify, simply because under the current government children are treated far more harshly than adults in determining their eligibility for carers payments. This quite simply astounds me. The Goswells have fallen through the hole created in the safety net, and this family is far from relaxed and comfortable. Their lives are a living nightmare. This is certainly an issue that the government should consider very seriously.I will make a couple of remarks relating to Centrelink and its treatment of people who are seeking employment. We should now realise that, due to economic rationalist policies, job seekers come from all levels of the socioeconomic ladder and from all skill levels. One constituent, whom I will call Joe, has been unemployed for 18 months since accepting redundancy from his employer, by whom he had been employed for 21 years. Joe accepted redundancy reluctantly—another important point is that a lot of people are really being forced out of employment—because his employment conditions and benefits would have deteriorated due to the restructuring taking place within his employer, Pacific Power. Joe, who has not been previously unemployed, finds some aspects of dealing with Centrelink unhelpful, including the requirement to make 10 calls a fortnight to prospective employers irrespective of employment prospects. Joe is one of a growing number of skilled people who have been forced into unemployment through structural economic reform who are now required to access a system that has not been designed for them.Finally, I will quote from a letter that recently appeared in my local newspaper. It expresses some concern about the way in which unemployed people are being treated. It states:The new system introduced by the government for finding employment is a nightmare. The CES is now disbanded and replaced by a network of faceless employment agencies. Where once you went to the CES and, on the same day, accessed employment and got an interview, you now have to fax many agencies. This means days, even weeks, before you might hear from anybody. I have sent many, many faxes and sat for exams for basic menial tasks only to hear from a few that tell you the position is filled. Someone made a passing comment: you are only a database statistic.(Time expired)Debate (on motion by Dr Nelson) adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 10.28 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing25061The following answers to questions were circulated:25061(Question No. 1517)151725061Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 May 2000:(1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a recent conviction of a Queensland truck driver on three counts of defrauding the Commonwealth, relating to excise evasion through selling marked solvent and selling the product to service stations as transport fuel.(2) What other prosecutions were undertaken for fuel excise evasion in 1997, 1998 and 1999, and what were the outcomes of those prosecutions.25061Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Minister for Justice and Customs to question 1496.The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) assumed responsibility for conducting investigations and prosecutions under the Fuel (Penalty Surcharges) Administration Act 1997 and the Excise Act 1901 on 12 July 1999. At that time, three prosecutions were transferred to the ATO from the Australian Customs Service. Two of these prosecutions are not yet finalised, the other resulted in the conviction of a Queensland truck driver (as mentioned in the honourable member's question).During the period 12 July to 31 December 1999 two prosecutions, which resulted from testing for marked product conducted prior to 11 July 1999, were commenced by the ATO under these Acts. One prosecution is not yet finalised. Prosecution on the other was not pursued based on DPP advice. For the year 2000 one prosecution was commenced under these Acts and another prosecution was commenced under the Crimes Act 1914.The States have general responsibility for fair trading issues which could include prosecutions for the sale of substandard fuel. Details of any actions taken by the States should be obtained from those Governments.25061(Question No. 2041)204125061Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MossfieldMK6GreenwayALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 10 October 2000:(1) Is he aware that the GST is being charged on Vitalcall services adding around $56 to the cost of this potentially lifesaving service.(2) Does he acknowledge that Vitalcall is an essential health service for sick and elderly people in the event of serious illness or accident.(3) Did he or his department raise this matter with the Treasurer or his department at any stage during the drafting of the GST legislation; if not, why not.(4) Will he act to ensure that the GST is removed from this service for elderly people; if not why not.25061Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Vitalcall is one of a range of `medical alert' services available to assist in maintaining the safety of the elderly and disabled. Vitalcall consists of two components: a `medical alert device', and an accompanying `monitoring service'.GST does not apply to the `medical alert device' component. Schedule 3 under Section 38-45 Medical aids and appliances, of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (the GST Act), lists `medical alert devices' (item 33) as GST-free.The monitoring component is also GST-free in many cases where a Vitalcall service is part of an essential health service or is used to assist frail elderly or people with a disability to remain in their homes: · if a nurse is monitoring the `medical alert device' and provides advice as part of a treatment program, it may be GST-free (Section 38-10(1) of the GST Act);· if the monitoring of a `medical alert device' is provided by an ambulance service, it will be GST-free (Section 38-10(1) of the GST Act);· if the supplier of the service receives funding under the Home and Community Care Act 1985, it will be GST-free (Section 38-30(2) of the GST Act);· if the supplier of the monitoring service receives a community care subsidy under Part3-2 of the Aged Care Act 1997, it will be GST-free (Section 38-30(1) of the GST Act);· if the supplier receives funding from the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory for providing a monitoring service to a person who is frail aged, or has a moderate, profound or severe disability (including addiction to a drug) and who lives at home and would be at risk of prematurely or inappropriately needing long term care in a hospital or other institution or would require residential care within the meaning of the Aged Care Act 1997, it will be GST-free (GST-free Supply (Care) Determination 2000-Section 38-30(4) of the GST Act); and· if the supplier receives funding under the Disability Services Act 1986 (or a complementary State or Territory law), for providing a monitoring service it will be GST-free (Section 38-40).In other cases, GST will apply at the rate of 10% of the cost of the monitoring service, which may vary across services.(2) The Minister does acknowledge that Vitalcall and similar services provide a valuable service to enable elderly and disabled people to remain safely in their own homes, and to be assisted promptly in case of accident or illness.(3) During the drafting of the GST legislation, there was much consultation between the Department of Health and Aged Care, Treasury, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and other government departments regarding the scope of GST legislation in relation to the health sector including in the area of medical aids and appliances. As a result, `medical alert devices' were indeed included in the Schedule of GST-free items (Schedule 3 of Section 38-45 of the GST Act).(4) As indicated above, `medical alert devices' are not subject to GST. In addition, there are many circumstances where the monitoring component may also be supplied GST-free. The ATO has ruled that, outside the specific circumstances identified above, the monitoring component of a `medical alert' service is subject to GST.25062(Question No. 2195)219525062Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 30 November 2000:(1) Did he issue a joint media release with the Minister for Finance and Administration on 23 December 1998, announcing the placement of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner at Liverpool Hospital.(2) Did he describe Liverpool Hospital as the largest new teaching hospital in Australia in an underserviced region for MRI facilities.(3) Did the Minister for Finance and Administration say in the release that he had worked hard to secure the new technology for the South-West Sydney population of 750,000.(4) Has Liverpool Hospital still not received its MRI scanner after nearly two years; if not, (a) why not, and (b) what action is he taking to finally deliver on his announcement of 23 December 1998.25062Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) Yes.(3) The media release stated Mr Fahey had worked hard to secure the new technology for the South-West Sydney population.(4) (a) The MRI Adjustment and Relocation Scheme was put on hold, pending the outcome of the Blandford Review of MRI. Therefore, no funding was provided for Liverpool Hospital. (b) In order to facilitate needed units for tertiary referral hospitals without an MRI unit, the recently appointed MRI Monitoring and Evaluation Group has, as part of their charter, the task of revising the Adjustment and Relocation Scheme. The Blandford Review also recommended that up to seven additional units be recognised for eligibility. These are to be located in areas that are comparatively under-serviced and a tendering process will be used to determine these locations. While the specific criteria have not yet been established, Liverpool Hospital may well qualify under one or both of the schemes outlined above.25063(Question No. 2282)228225063Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Has his attention been drawn to an article published in the Orient on 29 November 2000 concerning the law offices Adrian Joel and Co relating to class actions on immigration cases.(2) Does the article advise that class actions represented by Adrian Joel and Co involve so-called asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected by his Department and the Refugee Review Tribunal, irrespective of whether the applicant's visa has expired.(3) Does the article also advise that once the applicant's name is included in a class action, he or she is automatically entitled to a bridging visa and the right to stay in the country until the case is finalised.(4) What sum of taxpayers' money has his Department spent in defending the integrity of Australia's migration system against class actions mounted by Adrian Joel and Co and how many (a) class actions has the company mounted and (b) clients are involved in these class actions.(5) At what stage are the class actions initiated by Adrian Joel and Co and on what are they based?25063Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, although it should be noted that what appears in the Orient on that date is an advertisement for the services of Adrian Joel and Co, rather than an article about the firm.(2) and (3) The translated text of the advertisement reads:“FOR RESIDENCY AND REFUGE IN AUSTRALIAIf the specialised court has refused your refugee application, you can join our institution at reduced rates. We have succeeded in keeping five thousand people in two and a half years.It does not matter if you are an illegal immigrant and have been refused by the ministerial committee, as obtaining a bridging visa entitles you to become a lawful resident.Collect your files and call us for a free consultation.”(4) As of 12 February 2001, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has spent $242,609.48 defending class actions commenced by applicants represented by Adrian Joel and Co.(a) 3 class actions.(b) Number of class members - 4870.(5) The class actions are ready to be heard by the Full Bench of the High Court. The hearings are not expected before June 2001.A key issue in all three of the cases (Herijanto, Muin and Lie) is whether the Department failed to meet its statutory obligation of providing all relevant documents to the RRT. (s.418(3) of the Migration Act requires the Secretary to give the RRT each document in the Secretary's possession and control that is considered to be relevant to the review). The documents in dispute in these proceedings are the documents listed at Part B of the primary decision, that is, the information and evidence that the primary decision maker used to make their decision. The practice is for the decision maker, in part B, to list the full citation of any country information or report relied upon (including its CISNET reference). Hard copies of these documents are not forwarded to the RRT. The RRT has access to documents on CISNET.In Muin and Herijanto there is the additional question of whether the RRT complied with its practice directions (and common law natural justice) and brought all adverse material to the attention of the applicants. 25064(Question No. 2300)230025064Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Further to his question to question No. 2183 (Hansard, 6 February 2001, page 24,008) in which he stated that the TPV holder may be granted a permanent protection visa after the relevant period if they still need protection and meet the criteria, has he failed to make a commitment to those TPV holders that fulfil all relevant criteria that they will receive a permanent protection visa; if so, why.(2) Did he assure those at a public meeting in Melbourne on 22 November 2000 that these TPV holders would definitely be granted permanent protection.(3) If he is refusing to make such a commitment, how can TPV holders have any confidence about their future in Australia, and how can they make plans for their new life here.25064Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The provisions of the Migration Regulations are clear. Any TPV holder who is able to fulfil all the relevant criteria for grant of the permanent Protection Visa at the time of the visa decision, will be granted a permanent Protection Visa.(2) My answer above applies.(3) TPV holders are provided the protection and support required by the Refugees Convention. As noted in my response to Question No. 2183, and before that Question No. 1944, the Migration legislation makes it clear that the TPV is granted for a period of three years only. The TPV holder may be granted a permanent Protection Visa after the relevant period if they still need protection at that time and meet the criteria for grant of the permanent visa at that time.25064(Question No. 2339)233925064Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 7 February 2001: (1) What level of funding has the Government allocated to its Forest and Wood Products Industry Action Agenda for 2000-2001.(2) From which appropriation item(s) is this funding to be provided.(3) What funding provision, if any, is made in the Budget forward estimates for the Action Agenda.25064Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) Around $405,000 is available to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry from its running costs to administer the Action Agenda, including the Forest and Wood Products Council, during 2000-2001.(3) The government is in the process of developing the 2001-2002 budget. Details of funding for Action Agenda items are as yet unknown. The government has however announced that it will match industry levy payments for the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation on a dollar for dollar basis from 1 July 2001 (previous levy rates were $1 government for every $2 from industry). This is anticipated to cost around an additional $1.5 million annually.25064(Question No. 2340)234025064Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 7 February 2001:(1) What funding did the Commonwealth provide for the National Forest Inventory for (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98, (c) 1998-99 and (d) 1999-2000.(2) What is the funding allocation for the National Forest Inventory for 2000-2001. (3) From which appropriation item(s) is this funding provided.25065Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) * (a) $493,580 (b) $1,000,000 (c)$1,000,000 (d) $1,500,000(2) $1,650,000(3) AFFA Appropriations and the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT)(*figure includes Administration costs.)25065(Question No. 2342)234225065Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 7 February 2001: (1) Who are the members of the Government's Forest and Wood Products Council and which organisation does each member represent.(2) What is the operating budget for the Council for 2001-2002 and from which appropriation item are these costs being met.(3) How many meetings has the Council held to date and what was the date and agenda for each meeting.25065Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Forest and Wood Products Council (FWPC) is comprised of members who are leaders in their particular fields and who have the capacity and vision to work together for the betterment of the forest industry as a whole. Members participate as individuals and not representatives of particular organisations.The Hon Wilson Tuckey MP, Chair, Minister for Forestry and ConservationMr Greg McCormack, Managing Director, Midway Pty LtdMr Keith Mitchelhill, General Manager, Boral Timber Mr Douglas Head, Managing Director, Kempsey Timbers Pty LtdMr John Vaughan, Executive Director, Timbercorp LtdMr John Cameron, General Manager, Australian Paper Plantations Mr John Gay, Managing Director, Gunns LtdMr John McNamara, Managing Director, Hyne and Son Mr Bob Style, Managing Director, WestfiMr Gary Drobnack, Chief Executive, Green Triangle Forest Products LtdMr Bob Frost , Managing Director, Tasman KB LtdMr Trevor Smith, National Secretary, Forest and Forest Products Division, FMEUMr Ian Hearn, President, Furnishing Industry Association of Australia (WA) Inc(2) There is no specific budget for the Council. In the true spirit of Commonwealth/Industry partnership, funding is provided by both industry and the Commonwealth. Members fund their own participation in Council activities. Commonwealth operating costs are being met through the running costs appropriation of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia (AFFA). Around $405,000 is available to the Department from its running costs to administer the Action Agenda, including the Forest and Wood Products Council, during 2000-2001.(3) The Council has met once so far, on 1 November 2000. A copy of the agenda is attached. Copies of all meeting papers, including the Summary of Outcomes, are available to any member of the public on AFFA's website at www.affa.gov.au/docs/forestry/action_agenda/aa_index.html. Attachment to QoN 2342First Meeting of the Forest and Wood Products Council1 November 2000Room MG 63Parliament House CanberraAgenda Preliminaries1. Welcome from Chair2. Meeting Arrangements and AgendaDiscussion / Decision Items3. Forest Management Certification (Strategic Imperatives 1 and 2)4. Community Awareness (SI 3)- including RFA media campaign 5. Consolidated Database (SI 4)6. Innovation and Product Development (SI 5) 7. Industry Input into Environmental Policy (SI 6)8. Market and Investment Development (SI 7 and 8) - including cost effective haulage 9. Human Capital (SI 9 and 10)10. Improved National and Regional Linkages (SI 11 and 12)Closing ItemsOther BusinessGovernment subsidies/restructuring allowances Equitable public funding of public good conservation on private land 12. FWPC 2: Date and Venue25066(Question No. 2352)235225066Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 7 February 2001:(1) Why has Brazil been included by his Department as a risk factor in the assessment of visitor visa criteria within the Migration Regulations.(2) When was this decision made.(3) Given that European countries have implemented visa free travel arrangements for Brazil, what evidence is there to suggest that elimination of the risk factor for Brazilians would increase the number of over stayers in Australia.(4) What assurances can he give that this decision will not damage Australia's reputation as a tourist destination for Brazilians.25066Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Brazil was included in the Public Interest Criterion 4011 Risk Factor list because its visitor visa non-return rate in 1999-00 exceeded the benchmark non-return rate. In 1999-00, Brazil's visitor visa non-return rate was 9.4% and the inclusion benchmark was 7.23%. The benchmark is three times the global average non-return rate of 2.41% in 1999-00. With a non-return rate of 9.4%, Brazil had a non-return rate nearly four times the global average.(2) 12 December 2000. (3) While it is true that the Schengen States in Europe provide visa-free entry for Brazilian nationals, this is by no means the case universally. Canada, for example, requires Brazilian nationals to have a visa before arrival and the USA has not included Brazil in the US Visa Waiver Program. (4) Brazil's overall visitor non-return rate has risen over the past three years from 5.25% in 1997-98, to 5.66% in 1998-99, to 9.37% in 1999-00. Inclusion of Brazil on the risk factor list ensures that decision-makers take into consideration this growth in the non-return rate when they are making decisions on visitor visa applications. It is expected that there will be fewer Brazilians seeking to stay in Australia beyond the validity of their visitor visa as a result of Brazil's inclusion on the list.There is no evidence that this decision will damage Australia's strong reputation as a tourist destination for Brazilians. Visitor visa grants have remained strong in recent years and there is no indication that this growth is slowing this year: YearVisitor visas issued% change1998-995,5841999-006,970+ 24.8%2000-01 (to 31/1/01)6,576+ 71.2%