2001-03-063918REPS2506902001-03-06—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice250692506914:01:0025069Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question without notice is to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation representing the minister for communications. Minister, do you recall that, as acting minister for communications, you announced on 19 May 2000 that the government intended to examine a 12-month ban on online gambling and that on 25 May 2000 you announced details of that proposed ban? Do you also recall having carriage of the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000 in this House in December 2000? Minister, at any time during this period did you ever disclose your own or your family's valuable personal interest, held through complex family and personal trust structures, in a licence for 70 poker machines for the Millers Inn hotel in Altona in Melbourne's western suburbs?25069McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I would have expected it last week; after all, that newspaper article did occur in the middle of last week. I should simply say that my interests have been properly and fully and completely declared to the House on the register of members' interests and to the Prime Minister, in accordance with the Prime Minister's code of conduct.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call.XH4Mr McGAURAN—Bear in mind that the state government has jurisdiction over gaming machines; moreover it was a Labor Party government in 1991 that introduced them in Victoria. In regard to the federal government's interactive gambling moratorium legislation, it is aimed at preventing an increase in the availability of gambling.DT4Crean, Simon, MPXH4Mr McGAURAN—This is legislation the Labor Party did not vote for. You voted against this restriction on gambling.2506914:03:0025069Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of any studies on the impacts of European agricultural policy? What implications do the findings of the study have for Australian producers and consumers?25069Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question. I am aware of a recent report, the publication of which had been, to put it politely, delayed for at least a year by the European Union. It was a report carried out by the Netherlands economic institute on the impact of the European sugar industry. Coalition members and others from Queensland would be particularly aware of the impact of the European sugar policy, which was established in 1968, on sugar industries around the world. This most recent report that was done by a respected economics institute in the Netherlands shows that the European Union in 1998-99 spent $2.6 billion, in Australian dollar terms, on subsidies for just five million tonnes of sugar and that the measures used by the European Union include minimum guaranteed prices, import levies, production levies and preferential arrangements for the importation of raw sugar from former colonies of EC members.According to the report—and this is a Netherlands report—EU sugar production is now 10 per cent higher than EU sugar consumption, EU producers receive prices at least twice as high as the average world market price, the average cost of EU sugar is two to three times higher than that of its main competitors, and without subsidised EU sugar production the world market would be 46 per cent larger, world prices higher and the price level more stable. This drives home to Australians two points. It drives home the extraordinarily difficult trading circumstances in which the Australian sugar industry operates and the extremely unfair impact on all Australian primary producers of the distorted trading policies of the European Union. It also underscores the wisdom and the responsiveness of the government's sugar package of $83 million which was announced by the minister for agriculture a few months ago, which provides interest subsidies to assist in planting cane and running the business, family relief payments and assistance in financial management and planning. This is another piece of evidence that, despite great efficiencies by world standards, Australian primary producers are constantly being hobbled by the unfair trading, subsidy and economic policies of the European Union. 2507014:06:0025070Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation representing the minister for communications. Minister, are you aware that the Victorian gaming authority has indicated that poker machines in metropolitan Melbourne provide an average player loss per machine of $66,203 and that the gaming industry estimates that the introduction of Internet gambling would draw business away from established gaming operators? Minister, isn't it a conflict of interest for you to pursue a moratorium on online gambling when you have an interest in 70 existing poker machines?25070McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I have nothing further to add to my earlier answer, in that all of my interests have been disclosed fully. But throughout the Internet gambling debate the Labor Party has shown more interest in protecting the gaming industry at the expense of hundreds of thousands of Australians than anyone else.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on the question of relevance. The previous question was disclosure; this is conflict—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Well, it is a different question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I had the impression that the minister had concluded his answer. Am I correct?XH4Mr McGAURAN—Yes.2507014:08:0025070Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen further comments by state government ministers regarding their capacity to help ease the burden of high fuel prices? What is the Treasurer's response to these comments?25070Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Barker for his question. I have actually seen reports from various state premiers and treasurers in relation to their capacity to reduce tax on petrol, but none of those comments have been convincing. As I informed the House yesterday—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne!CT4Mr COSTELLO—The federal Labor Party interjection in support of the state premiers is a very interesting proposition. Under the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations, clause C2, the Commonwealth is obliged to pay to the states and the territories as a guaranteed minimum amount financial assistance grants, revenue replacement payments and state and territory taxes as defined. The revenue replacement payments are the equivalent of the business franchise fees that the states used to impose before the fees were struck down by the High Court. In particular, the revenue replacement fee is 8.35c per litre, which the Commonwealth is obliged to collect and pay to each of the state governments under the guaranteed minimum amount. Each and every one of those states receives from the Commonwealth the equivalent of 8.35c per litre under clause C2 of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations. That being the case, if a state premier or a state treasurer were legitimately concerned about the taxation of fuel, they have the capacity to reduce by 8.35c per litre the taxation of fuel in their state. There is one state premier who did it. The Queensland state Premier tried to abolish his previously existing subsidy, was caught by the Commonwealth and reintroduced it. I am legitimately perturbed by the claims from some states that they do not have the capacity to do it. For example, New South Wales insists that the Commonwealth pay to it $707 million, being 8.35c per litre on the fuel which is sold in New South Wales. It has the capacity to return all of that to its motorists, but it returns only $47 million. If the New South Wales Premier and New South Wales Treasurer are legitimately concerned about tax on petrol, they have the opportunity to give motorists in New South Wales a 7.2c cut in the tax on petrol. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot come to Canberra and insist that they be paid 8.35c and then go back to their states and say that they have no capacity to reduce taxation. They could reduce it by 7.2c tomorrow.Even more bizarre were the claims by the Victorian Premier, Mr Bracks, on the Mitchell program on 6 March 2001—today. He was asked this question:You do get compensation for the petrol taxes you don't collect—that is, that are collected by the Commonwealth.This is the answer:BRACKS: Yeah, but we get a bundle.Too right they get a bundle.BRACKS: That's right the High Court decision made the franchise fees illegal.MITCHELL: So the feds collected it and said we'll give it back to you.BRACKS: Which was the case in every state in Australia except Queensland ...MITCHELL: So they're giving it back to you at the rate of 6.6 ...Actually we are giving it back at the rate of 8.35.BRACKS: Yeah but it's in a bundle ...MITCHELL: But can't it be cut out of the bundle and given to the motorist?BRACKS: Can it be cut out of the bundle? Well the reality is we're being dudded ...Let me explain for the benefit of Premier Bracks how he can cut it out of his bundle. The Commonwealth is obliged to pay to the state of Victoria, according to the budget papers, $5.69 billion. Out of that bundle, $507 million is for the petrol excise. Mr Bracks pays back to the motorist $38 million. He has the capacity to return the remaining $469 million and cut the petrol excise in Victoria by 6.6c per litre. If Mr Bracks finds it too hard to cut the sum of $469 million out of his bundle, out of his $5.69 billion, here is an offer I make him: I will send him a separate cheque for the $469 million. I will cut it out of the bundle if he will undertake to return it to the motorist.It is not that hard to take $469 million out of the $5.69 billion. I could live with this argument if Premier Bracks were honest and said, `The truth of the matter is I want to keep the 8.35c per litre.' That would be an honest position. But what I cannot live with is a state premier who comes to Canberra, demands that he be paid 8.35c per litre, is paid $507 million and then wants to pretend that he is worried about the taxation of petrol. If he is worried about the taxation of petrol, we will cut it out of his bundle, and he can return it to the motorist.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance, Mr Speaker. The Treasurer is suggesting that the states return all the fuel excise to the motorist. Is he proposing that the federal government return—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that was an outrageous abuse of the standing orders on relevance. The Treasurer's answer was entirely relevant to the question asked.CT4Mr COSTELLO—What I am suggesting is simply this: those Labor Party premiers who want to go on the radio and say that the petrol excise should be cut have the capacity to do it, and while they refuse to do it their grandstanding is complete hypocrisy. That is what I am saying, and we note that the Labor Party is full of defending the Labor states on keeping petrol excise, while saying that the coalition should pay it back. That is the Labor Party position. What I am saying is this: Premier Bracks, Premier Carr and Treasurer Egan cannot have it both ways. If they want to pretend that they are worried about tax on petrol, they can cut it. If they refuse to cut it, they should not go around pretending that they are worried about the tax on petrol—it is nothing but sheer hypocrisy. 2507214:17:0025072Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I again ask the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation and the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts that part of the question that he refused to answer before. Minister, isn't it a conflict of interest for you to pursue a moratorium on online gambling when you have an interest in 70 existing poker machines?3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand your instinct to allow these questions to avoid potentially prejudicing a minister by declaring a question out of order, but I nonetheless rise under standing order 76. Firstly, this is a serious personal imputation and, secondly, the question has already been asked and fully answered. So I rise to defend not the minister, who I know wants to answer the question, but the standing orders, which are being trampled upon.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I know that the member for Parramatta means well—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will deal very swiftly with those who find this sort of exercise amusing. But in fact any suggestion that the standing orders are being, to use his term, `trampled upon' and not defended by the chair is an unintended reflection on the chair. The question does contain imputation, as many questions do, and, if I felt the imputation were an unreasonable one, of course I would rule the question out of order. I allowed the previous question to stand; this question is also allowed to stand.25072McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The government has made it perfectly clear that it is concerned about the potential quantum increase in the accessibility of gambling services, so it decided to take action. For that reason, it introduced the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000. The main purpose of the moratorium is to halt the development of the interactive gambling industry in Australia while the government investigates the feasibility of a permanent ban. The government's actions are to restrict gambling—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We know what the bill did; we want to know about the conflict of interest by the minister.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He does not have a point of order; the minister's reply is relevant.XH4Mr McGAURAN—Suggestions by the honourable member that the government is trying to protect the offline pokie industry by banning online pokies is absurd. As contained in your earlier question, regulation of offline gaming, including regulation of electronic gaming machines or pokies, is a state and territory issue. The Commonwealth is showing national leadership in regard to its powers under the Constitution, and the Minister for Family and Community Services has been chairing the Ministerial Council on Gambling. No doubt you have checked the members register. You will see that I have fully disclosed my interests in this matter.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What about the conflict of interest?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware that he does not engage in debate with the chair.2507214:21:0025073Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is addressed to my colleague the Minister for Small Business. Would the minister inform the House of reductions in fuel tax that have benefited small business since the introduction of the new tax system last July? 25073Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I thank the member for Menzies for his question. I know, from discussions I have had with him, the keen interest he takes in the small businesses in his electorate of Menzies. The Howard led government is committed to ensuring that small business remains the engine room of Australia's economy and, as part of that process, we are keen to ensure that we deliver to small business the sorts of reforms they ask for. Small business is one of the big supporters of tax reform in Australia. Small business has already benefited from the receipt of income tax cuts and, of course, the abolition of the very inefficient wholesale sales tax and its replacement with an input credit scheme through the GST.On the issue of fuel, we have delivered to small business significant cuts in excise and taxes. On 1 July, under the new tax system, we introduced a cut to excise from 44.1c to 37.4c—a cut of 6.7c. I am sure the Treasurer would agree that it would be good if the states would look at their own excises to see whether they can cut them as well. Further to that, last week we delivered a cut of some 1.5c to excise right across the board. Again, I am sure the Treasurer would agree that, if the states even matched that, it would be seen by the motorists in those states as a welcome move. What this amounts to is a saving to small business on excise and taxes of some 7½ to 8c a litre every time they fill up.We would like to know what is the Labor Party's policy on excise and the changes we have introduced. The Labor Party opposed these changes every inch of the way, to the point where the shadow Minister for Small Business is on the record as saying that the Fuel Sales Grants Scheme should be abolished. The Fuel Sales Grants Scheme delivers to small business and consumers in regional Australia savings of 1c to 2c a litre, and the Labor Party want to abolish it. The Labor Party is a party for higher fuel tax.Distinguished Visitors2507310000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that the Rt Hon. Jonathon Hunt MP, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of New Zealand, is within the precincts. With the concurrence of honourable members, I propose to provide him with a seat on the floor of the House.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Speaker Hunt was seated accordingly.Questions Without Notice250732507314:26:0025073Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Has Minister McGauran fully disclosed to you in his confidential declaration to the Prime Minister his commercial interest in 70 poker machines at the Millers Inn in Altona North? Did he disclose to you that, after payments to the TAB, this would produce for the company in which he has interests about $1 million per year? Has the secretary to your department provided you with advice on the conflict of interest between Minister McGauran's gaming interests and his role in the government's policy on restricting online gambling? If you received such advice, on what basis did you allow Minister McGauran to be involved in this area of government policy? If the minister has not disclosed his commercial interest in poker machines, what action do you propose to take in relation to this conflict of interest?25073Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The minister provided me with a document about his personal interests and that was handled in the same way that other documents were. I do not know offhand, without refreshing my memory, what was in that document. In the circumstances what I will do is take the leader's question on notice, have a look at the documentation and, when I am in a position to do so, come back to the House.2507314:27:0025074Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, what is the government doing to ensure genuine payments and fairness for job seekers? 25074Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I thank the member for Moore for his question. I know that he has a very keen interest in the welfare of constituents in his electorate, particularly those who are actively looking for employment. The government has a very firm but fair view when it comes to helping genuine job seekers seeking Newstart allowance. It is terribly important that they get their full entitlement—nothing more and nothing less. That is why it is very pleasing that, in the last financial year—1999-2000—86 per cent of those individuals receiving Newstart allowance did the right thing: they attended to their mutual obligations, they attended their interviews and they declared their earnings.Of course, we are concerned about the other 14 per cent—those individuals who may be breached. It is interesting that, when you look at the figures, of those on a second breach 2.6 per cent are in that category and only 1.1 per cent are on a third breach. This is significantly different from when the Labor Party was in government. There was one breach and that was it—you lost 100 per cent of your payment. We were requested by ACOSS to have a fairer scheme and this was supported by the Australian Labor Party. What we have done, particularly for Newstart recipients—those between 18 and 34—is introduce a Work for the Dole scheme, which has been highly successful. We also introduced Job Network and we have introduced a preparing for work agreement to ensure that job seekers know their rights and responsibilities. There is an appeal process. If people do feel as though they may have been breached incorrectly, they can appeal. What is interesting is that, of those appeals, only 2.6 are actually appealed and less than one-third are set aside.We are also very cognisant that, if people are homeless, if they have a drug dependency or if they have a mental illness, of course they are exempt from this breaching regime. We want fairness. The Labor Party's record of fairness is that, when they breached someone, that person lost 100 per cent of their entitlements straightaway. In the last year that the Labor Party was in government, 86,000 people lost their total entitlement, which is well over four times the number for the current regime. That was their policy on breaching. When it came to fraud, they let it go unchecked. They had sloppy compliance mechanisms. And the bottom line: Working Nation was also a total failure. Labor never encouraged people back to work; they were happy to let them languish on social security payments.2507414:30:0025074Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, isn't it a fact that a single income couple with three children, who earn $28,000 per annum and who pay $290 per fortnight in rent, will have an overall cut in their family tax benefit payment of $4.40 per fortnight from 20 March due to the cut in their rent assistance? Isn't it also a fact that there have been no increases in family tax benefit since the introduction of the GST? Prime Minister, as a result, doesn't the $4.40 per fortnight eat directly into this family's original GST compensation? 25074Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I would have to do my own calculations. I have this disturbing habit that, when the opposition puts a proposition to me based on some of their arithmetic, I like to go away and do a little checking of my own. I do not know why; I just want to do that. Maybe it has to do with the habits of the opposition. But let me just return the Leader of the Opposition to the way in which the rent assistance operates. The rent assistance scheme in its present form was introduced in 1993. As a result of that scheme's operation over the years, it is my understanding that every time there is a periodic adjustment, several thousand people can be affected, including `adversely affected'. So the fact that somebody's rent assistance goes up and down is a function of the periodic indexation of the threshold.CT4Costello, Peter, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—The Treasurer reminds me that this adjustment is something that is part and parcel of a scheme. Unless you have a rent adjustment scheme—and I do not hear the opposition suggesting this—that never involves any kind of adjustment of the threshold, then of course you might have a different outcome. But I do not hear the Labor Party advocating that. When they introduced the scheme, that was not an element of it. I will still go away and check the arithmetic, but it would appear to me that the Leader of the Opposition is complaining about the operation of a policy that his government, prior to 1996, introduced. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It was your GST!ZD4Mr HOWARD—No, the loss of this money is due to the adjustment of the rent assistance threshold, not to the operation of the government's taxation system. It is your rent threshold that is being adjusted. That is the reason why this family—and I would have to go away and do the arithmetic—could be affected in the way that the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. 2507514:33:0025075Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Is the minister aware of a survey on workplace relations and employment issues released yesterday? What is the government's response to this survey?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPYU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition. The member for Melbourne.PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is defying the chair! I find very few people in the gallery amused by any of the performance of those on my left.K26Latham, Mark, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa is warned. 25075Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—May I say that departmental officials certainly ask much better questions than members opposite.83LGillard, Julia, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lalor! The minister has the call.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Catholic schoolboys of my acquaintance, of my generation, used to recite the poetry of Monsignor P.J. Hartigan—some members opposite might remember it—and one of those poems had a refrain, from memory, something like this: `We'll all be rooned,' said Hanrahan, `before the year is out.'Roonism—the view that life is bad and getting worse—is a mutant sibling of the tall poppy syndrome and it risks poisoning Australian public life. One of the worst features—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is warned!EZ5Mr ABBOTT—One of the worst features of the roonism practised by members opposite is that they run down Australia in order to build up themselves. They knock their country—84GWilkie, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The member for Swan will excuse himself from the House, under the provisions of 304A.The member for Swan then left the chamber.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—They knock their country in order to try to get a cheap political advantage themselves. The latest example of this `roonism' is an ACTU survey purporting to show how bad life is in contemporary Australia. There are three serious problems with this survey. First of all, it is from an obviously self-interested source; second, it contains, apparently, doctored figures; and, third, it peddles urban myths masquerading as facts. This ACTU survey was conducted by the Australian Labor Party's private pollster, handpicked by Paul Keating, which receives about a million dollars a year courtesy of the Australian Labor Party. When this material first appeared on the ACTU's web site on Friday, 2 March, this so-called authoritative survey said: ... 34% of Australians indicate that they have less job security. By Monday, 5 March the survey said:... 43% of employees are less secure in their job.What happened last weekend to cause job insecurity to rise by nearly one-third? Obviously nothing happened. This is the kind of survey where you pay your money and you get the exact result that you want. Sharan Burrow gave the game away when she said on the ABC yesterday:We wanted to validate a blueprint for fairness that we put out this afternoon. Plainly, this ACTU survey is nothing but a crude exercise in push polling. The fact is that workers do not have more job insecurity; this government has created 800,000 jobs. Living standards have not fallen; average weekly earnings are up by 12 per cent under this government. Spending on education has not been cut; in fact, it is up by one-third. On the evidence of this survey, the one thing you cannot do is trust the ACTU. You cannot trust the ACTU and you cannot trust the political party which the unions own, operate and funded to the tune of $5.7 million in the last financial year.2507614:39:0025076Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, isn't it true that the government's decision to claw back essential ancillary benefits like telephone allowance, pharmaceutical allowance and rent assistance was not clearly disclosed to pensioners either before the election or in the lead-up to the introduction of the GST? Prime Minister, why didn't you tell pensioners about your mean clawback on these other benefits?25076Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do not accept the allegation made by the member for Lilley. I will, naturally, as I always do, investigate it. If there is anything further to add to what I have said, I will. I might, just in passing, mention that the Age Pension News of March-April 2000 contained information regarding the operation of the advance payment in relation to the increase in the pension. While I am on my feet, if it is allowed by you, Mr Speaker, I would like to say that I have not completed the independent arithmetical analysis of the question of the Leader of the Opposition, but I do have a sort of advance instalment on that process which may be of some assistance to honourable members. I think the leader asked me about a single income family on $28,000 with three children. I think that is what he asked me, and I think he mentioned a rent adjustment of somewhere in the order of $4 a fortnight. My advice is that a single income family on $30,000 a year with three children, when you take into account the extra family assistance and the tax cuts, is $70.39 a week better off—$70.39 a week better off. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—That's not the point.ZD4Mr HOWARD—`It's not the point,' he said. Oh, no, of course it is not the point!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Any member is entitled at any time to raise a point of order, and I have to make the presumption that the Leader of the Opposition is rising on a point of order.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I am, and it is about relevance, Mr Speaker. If he is going to answer the question I asked him earlier—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I had allowed the Prime Minister to continue this answer because the question that he had offered to get more information on earlier was clearly relevant to the question he had just been asked, and for that reason I had allowed him to add to the answer.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I repeat that this family is $70.39 a week better off as a result—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—They are $70.39 a week better off than they would have been if you had been in government. Not only are they $70.39 a week better off as a result of tax reform but also families in a similar situation are significantly better off because of the lower mortgage interest rates that obtain in Australia.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—They're renters. Don't you know anybody who rents a house? 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Manager of Opposition Business, for the third time!2507714:43:0025077Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—I address my question to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of material being distributed by the Queensland Teachers Union regarding the federal government's education policies? Is this material factual, and what is the minister's response to it?25077Kemp, 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 Fairfax for his question. I am aware of the Queensland Teachers Union's announcement yesterday that it plans to distribute to Queensland parents a leaflet that contains what can only be described as an outrageous collection of lies and misrepresentations regarding federal government school funding arrangements. I call on the state Minister for Education in Queensland to ensure that this blatant piece of political propaganda is not distributed through schools in that state. Amongst the outrageous claims in the leaflet—Opposition members interjecting—BT4Dr KEMP—The other side will defend to the death the right of unions to politicise Australian schools, but you will not hear a peep from the Leader of the Opposition when unions go out disrupting basic literacy tests that are fundamental to the future of Australian children. The union party is all about spreading disinformation and not about advancing the interests of Australian schoolchildren and protecting the rights of Australian parents.Amongst the outrageous claims in this leaflet is that the Howard government has cut funding to government schools in Queensland. In fact, the reverse is the truth. The Howard government is providing record levels of funding to government schools in Queensland. Commonwealth funding to government schools in Queensland this year now stands at a record $416.5 million, a 6.6 per cent increase over last year and a 44 per cent increase over 1996. In other words, there has been a massive infusion of funds by the Howard government into public education in Queensland. By contrast, it is the state Labor government, which has the principal responsibility for funding government schools, that is short-changing public education in Queensland. I illustrate this by pointing out that the last Queensland state budget increased government school funding from state sources by less than one per cent.This outrageous leaflet from the Queensland Teachers Union also peddles the furphy that state schools receive only 35 per cent of total federal funding. The reality is that over 60 per cent of the money that flows to schools through the Commonwealth budget identified grants and financial assistance grants goes to government schools. It is also a fact that government schools nationwide get more than three times as much funding as non-government schools: public funding for government schools is around $13 billion per annum for the two million students in those schools whereas non-government schools receive $3 billion per annum for the one million students in those schools.The Queensland Teachers Union says it intends to distribute this political propaganda on behalf of the federal Labor Party through state schools to parents. I call once again on the Queensland state minister to give instructions to school principals in that state that this political propaganda is not to be distributed through schools. Should the state government refuse to do this and allow the distribution of this propaganda, I will be asking the Queensland state government to ensure that the federal government's response to this outrageous information will equally be distributed to parents in Queensland so they can hear the truth.2507714:48:0025077Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, isn't it a fact that a pensioner couple living in a caravan or relocatable home park who are paying $110 per week will have their already clawed-back pension increase due on 20 March reduced by a further $3.20 due to cuts in their rent assistance—yes or no? SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—That is opposition over there!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation! The question was addressed to the Minister for Community Services, and I call him.25078Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—You certainly cannot take anything for granted from the member for Grayndler, particularly with those comments. But what is important for pensioners, particularly pensioners living in mobile home parks, is that the figure they are getting today in pension reimbursement is $30 more than they would have got in June last year and indeed is significantly more than if the Australian Labor Party were in government. In regard to indexation and rent assistance, as the Prime Minister pointed out, this was a policy introduced by the Australian Labor Party back in 1993 to ensure adequate indexation between the minimum threshold and the lower threshold.I will have a look at the member for Grayndler's question. But, as I said before, we can never believe what you say. You always masquerade as a caravan park tenant, and of course you should spend more time in your own electorate representing your own people, who benefited dramatically from the 10 per cent increase in the maximum threshold that we provided.2507814:50:0025078Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Could the minister update the House on the coalition's continuing efforts to improve access to Medicare? Is the minister aware of any claims relating to the location and opening of new Medicare offices?25078Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Accessing Medicare has always been difficult, particularly when we simply had Medicare offices which were not able to be located in all the areas they were needed. That is why one of our initiatives on coming to government was to bring in Medicare Ezyclaim facilities in pharmacies. These have been particularly popular. We now have nearly 600 pharmacies in Australia with Medicare Ezyclaim facilities, and we have plans for the roll-out of another 200 over the coming months. This will mean that there are nearly 800 locations in Australia where people can directly access the Health Insurance Commission for Medicare claims in ways they were not possibly able to do so before.The location of Medicare offices in their electorates is something that is keenly sought by local members. My attention was grabbed late last week when someone forwarded to me an advertisement from the Port Stephens Examiner of Wednesday, 28 February 1996—three days before the 1996 election. The advertisement says:Bob Horne MPNelson Bay Medicare office opensBob Horne and Labor are committed to making Medicare even better for local families. That is why Bob Horne fought so hard to get a Medicare office opened in Nelson Bay.There is only one problem with that: there is no Medicare office in Nelson Bay. It never opened; it never happened.Opposition members interjecting—8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—We have Bob Horne, the local member, three days before the election claiming that a Medicare office in Nelson Bay has opened—an election advertisement saying that this is the case. You can imagine my surprise when I got a letter from one of his constituents who claimed they had been walking around the shopping centre looking for it—but it had never happened. The second part of this is that the member for Paterson also says how hard he worked to get this Medicare office open—an office which in fact does not exist. So I thought that I would check with the Health Insurance Commission as to how much representation it had received from the member for Paterson in his very hard work to get this fictitious Medicare office to open. It is true—he did write one letter to the Health Insurance Commission in three years, and he got a reply from the parliamentary secretary to the minister at the time, the member for Calwell, saying, `No, we can't do it, we're never going to do it, and we can't open part-time offices because they're inefficient.' The fact is that today the people of Nelson Bay do have two claiming facilities in pharmacies. They do have access that they never had before. I am happy to table the advertisement for this fictitious Medicare office, which was published three days before the 1996 election. The member for Paterson has a bit of explaining to do. 2507914:54:0025079Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Have you seen today's Westpac composite index, which has fallen below Asian crisis levels and is tracking the US leading indicator, not lagging it? Are you aware of Westpac's comment that `the GST effects in Australia have pre-empted the US weakness, and the current level is around the lows of the mid-90s with no guarantees that it has bottomed out'? Treasurer, will you now admit that the GST has mugged the Australian economy?25079Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As I said to the House yesterday, obviously there have been transitional and one-off factors brought about by tax changes, and this is a point that the government has made on many occasions. For example, in relation to the construction industry, there was a huge bring-forward of construction work into the March and June quarters of 2000. In fact, construction at that point was, as a proportion of the economy, at some 20-year high. Obviously, once you had had a huge bring-forward in the March and the June quarters, that would be unwound in the September and the December quarters, as we have seen. And, as I told the House yesterday, we have just seen in the most recent trend figures the building approvals market pick up again.Conversely, there were changes the other way. For example, I can recall in the lead-up to June-July 2000 motor car manufacturers bemoaning a lack of sales as people held off because cars became cheaper under the new system. That again was a one-off matter where, in that case, purchases were put back. Since the new taxation system has come into effect, in relation to motor car sales, July was the highest July on record, August was the highest August on record, October was the highest October on record—Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Labor Party used to tax cars at 22 per cent—wholesale sales tax. Once you abolished wholesale sales tax and introduced 10 per cent GST—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean— I asked you about the Westpac comments—you're talking about anything but.CT4Mr COSTELLO—cars became cheaper, so anybody who knew that the tax change was going on held back prior to 1 July. I am saying that you have these transitional, one-off factors. July was the highest July on record, August was the highest August on record, October was the highest October on record, November was the highest November on record and December—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—No-one believes you.CT4Mr COSTELLO—These are the motor vehicle registration figures.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—No-one believes you. You're not answering the question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Hotham wants to say that nobody believes the VFACTS industry summary of motor registrations. These are independent statistical facts. They may be inconvenient to the Labor Party, but they are independent statistical facts. November was the highest November on record, December was the highest December on record and January was the highest January on record. We have always said that there are going to be one-off and transitional factors. There are some things that were put back—electricals, cars—which are now catching up. There are some things that were brought forward. In particular, construction was brought forward for very strong months in March and June. We have always said that you would have one-off and transitional factors which would be displayed in the September and the December national accounts. We expect that by the time of the current quarter, the March national accounts, you will be getting a much clearer picture of where the economy actually stands. The economy will be stronger throughout the course of this year than it otherwise would have been, because this government cut tax. The Australian Labor Party opposed the taxation changes on the grounds not that they would mug the economy but that they would overheat it. They spent the whole of the year 2000 saying, `You are giving away too much in income tax cuts; you are overheating the economy.' Today they want to say, `Oh, no, no, no. We were wrong about that. It was not giving away too much; it has had the reverse effect.' As I said yesterday, the Labor Party have the ability to hold mutually inconsistent positions simultaneously and be wrong about both of them.2508014:59:0025080Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Would he inform the House of the results of the preliminary Viney report into banking and of what this report means for Australian consumers? Is the minister aware of any alternative banking policies?25080Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank the member for Wannon for something more than a passing interest in banking. In his capacity as Chair of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, he is well recognised around Australia as a leading authority on banking regulation. Richard Viney released his bank appointed review of the banking code of practice yesterday. The government views this paper as a very significant report, because it identifies for the banks key community concerns about consumers and banking. There were a large number of recommendations in the report, but some of the key recommendations, which we are encouraging the banks to respond to as quickly as possible, include that credit should not be extended to those people who cannot afford to repay it. Why should you extend the credit card limit when you know that people cannot repay the money? Secondly, guarantors should be properly informed of their legal and financial obligations to the bank. Thirdly, banks should better disclose low fee, low cost accounts for those most financially disadvantaged in the community. Fourthly, the banking code of practice should incorporate the principle of fairness—this is commonsense—and that, under the banking code, small business should have the same rights as individuals. One of the more significant recommendations is that—and this was taken out of the Hawker report into banking—it was recognised that the banks should implement a three-month consultation period with the local community before they decide to close a branch. All members on this side of the House would welcome community consultation by the banks before they take any actions that may disadvantage a community. The Viney report is a 200-page report with 12 pages of recommendations covering a range of areas from electronic banking to staff training. We are encouraging the banks to think not only of their shareholders but most importantly of their customers. I need to confess to the House that I might have inadvertently misled some members on 6 February when I advised that the Viney committee had received 26 submissions and none of them were from the federal Labor Party. In fact, I was wrong. Viney received 56 submissions and none of them were from the federal Labor Party—not one. Yesterday in response to the report, the Labor Party put out a press release—believe this—saying that the Viney report was a missed opportunity when, of 56 submissions, not one came from the federal Labor Party. It is not as though the federal Labor Party did not have time. The ALP had since 12 May last year to put in a submission; that is, 10 months—43 weeks or 298 days, in case it needs to be simplified, or 7,152 hours—to put in a submission. The Labor Party did not contribute one zack to the report on banking commissioned by the banks. Why didn't the Labor Party put in a report? Why didn't the Labor Party put in a submission?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPDK6Mr HOCKEY—The Leader of the Opposition is saying that he cannot trust the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to put in something that is informative. It is a policy-lazy opposition. On something as important to the community as banking, the Labor Party has no contribution to make, and that says a lot about a policy-lazy Labor Party.2508115:04:0025081Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Do you recall claiming last November `employment is booming', just as full-time employment collapsed? Do you recall telling the House yesterday that `Exports are booming ... booming exports ... Yes, booming is the fact'? Treasurer, have you seen today's ACCI-Westpac survey that shows not booming exports but collapsing exports, together with lower business confidence, lower output, weaker new orders, lower capacity utilisation, poor investment expectations and the worst profits outlook since 1991? Isn't this just further evidence that none of your claims can ever be believed?25081Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Exports have grown 21 per cent over the year to January. That is the point I made yesterday. The member for Hotham may say that a 21 per cent increase in exports is not booming. I would love to know the figure that he would point to during the six years he sat on the front bench of the Labor Party from 1990 to 1996 that compares with the 21 per cent increase in exports. During the six years that he sat on the front bench, the Labor Party government accumulated $80,000 million in deficits. We are quite happy to stand up here and talk about the economy because, during the period when the member for Hotham sat on the Labor Party front bench with the then minister for employment, unemployment was 11.3 per cent. Today it is 6.7 per cent. When I spoke about jobs last November I would have made this point.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—They're collapsing.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The unemployment rate today is 6.7 per cent. He says that is collapsing. When this government came to office, the unemployment rate was 8.7 per cent and 800,000 people have since been put into work. That is presumably a collapsing labour market—an additional 800,000 jobs! In the six years during which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition sat on the front bench of the Labor Party, the record low for unemployment was 8.7 per cent. Their record high, of course, was 11.3 per cent.The Deputy Leader of the Opposition can stand up here and say, `Exports have only grown by 21 per cent, unemployment has only fallen to 6.7 per cent, interest rates are only 7½ per cent.' You have got to compare a 7½ per cent interest rate with the alternative. If you really want to compare it with the alternative, we can remember the Labor Party's record: 17 per cent. We can remember an overdraft rate of 21 per cent. You have got to compare the current economic outcomes: an interest rate of 7½ per cent, unemployment at 6.7 per cent, a budget which is now in surplus, $50 billion of the Labor Party's $80 billion worth of debt repaid in five years and exports up 21 per cent. I said earlier that you are going to get reflected in both the September and the December quarters of the national accounts one-off and transitional factors, not only because of bring-forwards and push-backs through the taxation changes but because of the changes in relation to the Olympics. The thing that this economy needs is good economic management: budgets which are in surplus, interest rates which are low and unemployment which has fallen in a way which the Australian Labor Party could never dream of.2508115:09:0025081Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the fate of the 2,000-year-old Buddhist archaeological treasures in Afghanistan following reports that the fundamentalist Taliban regime is threatening to destroy them?25081Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I recognise the honourable member for Aston's interest in this important issue. The Australian government deplores the threatened act of cultural vandalism proposed by the Taliban extremists in Afghanistan. If they were to carry out the threats that they have made, and there is some evidence that they have begun to do so already, then that would constitute the most disgraceful act of cultural vandalism outside of wartime and I think deserves to be totally condemned by the international community. The Bamyan statues not only are considered Afghanistan's best-known archaeological treasures but are of very great importance to the whole of the world. They date back about 1,500 years, and the tallest statue, which is more than 50 metres high, is the tallest standing Buddha in the world and is one of the tallest statues of any kind in the world. Our government, along with many others, calls on the Taliban to respect the cultural and spiritual heritage of all religious groups and to cease all further acts of destruction. A number of organisations and countries have condemned what the Taliban have been doing and have called for them to cease forthwith. That includes, not surprisingly, UNESCO but also the United States, the European Union, a range of Buddhist countries and, interestingly enough, Afghanistan's neighbours Iran and Pakistan. Indeed, members may be interested to know that Iran offered to buy those statues in order to try to ensure their preservation. A special United Nations envoy has visited Afghanistan to persuade the Taliban to save these irreplaceable parts of the world's cultural heritage. I am sure all Australians deplore this act of cultural vandalism by the Taliban. We feel in particular for those members of the Buddhist community in Australia who have been affected emotionally by this very distressing affair.2508215:11:0025082Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, in 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 endorsement of the need to `reorder priorities', can you give a guarantee that the promised $23 billion defence package, including the $1.5 billion over the next two years, will be exempted and protected from any budget cuts?25082Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The government's white paper announcements and funding for defence have already been factored into the budget. The government will be delivering on the white paper, which it has already fully funded in the budget. If we could find two submarines for free, I am sure we would go out and pick them up as well, but as yet we are still waiting for the Leader of the Opposition to tell us where you get free submarines. If he discloses the place, we will add them to Australia's Defence Force.2508215:13:0025082Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister update the House on the number of dairy farmers who have now received assistance from the dairy industry restructure package? Is the minister aware of proposals to change the dairy package?25082Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—This government is very conscious of the impact on dairy farmers around Australia of dairy deregulation and has been working with the industry to endeavour to make the transition to the new arrangements as smooth as possible. I can report to the House that almost 99 per cent of dairy farmers have now received the notices indicating to them the amount of payments that they will receive under the federal government's restructuring package and 86 per cent have now been paid at least their first two instalments.The honourable member also asked whether there are any alternative policies. I have noticed three alternative policies coming from the Labor Party over the last couple of weeks and it has been quite interesting to follow these alternative policies because they seem to be all over the shop. Just yesterday, the Queensland minister for agriculture, Henry Palaszczuk, put out a new plan to assist dairy farmers. Here we have the Queensland minister who deregulated the industry in the state of Queensland, who provided absolutely no compensation whatsoever to the Queensland industry, proposing a five-point plan to assist the industry and—wouldn't you know it?—all five points involve more money from the Commonwealth. An extra $200 million from the Commonwealth is Henry Palaszczuk's plan to assist the dairy industry. It is interesting that he does not seem to quite have his plan in line with that announced by the Leader of the Opposition during that boondoggle bus trip up to northern New South Wales. Amongst the Queensland minister's plans is a proposal to spend another $45 million on a dairy regional adjustment program. That is a program that the Leader of the Opposition proposed to slash by $20 million under his plan for the industry, and to spend the money on training schemes that this government has been funding out of FarmBis. Some interesting comments have also been made on this issue by another expert on dairy industry policy, the member for Werriwa. As often is the case, when we are looking for a bit of honesty in this field we have to go to the member for Werriwa. To the member for Werriwa's credit, when he was speaking on the John Stanley show following his notorious article in the press last week, where he condemned all taxation concessions to agriculture and said that farmers should be paying more tax, he was questioned on some of these issues. I do not want to be critical of the member for Werriwa, because for the first time at least he acknowledged who was responsible for dairy deregulation—in fact, he praised the Bracks Labor government and his state Labor colleagues because, he said, they are the ones who kicked off dairy deregulation. At last we have, contrary to the comments by the shadow minister and the member for Paterson, at least an acknowledgment that it was the state governments that introduced dairy deregulation. He went on to say:I have not got any dairy farmers in my electorate.Surprise, surprise!But what I have got is the lowest milk prices on record. You can now go down to Duffy Brothers at Campbelltown and buy two litres of milk for $1.90. Now we haven't seen prices like that since the 1980s, and I was talking to a family in my electorate that has got seven children and they buy six litres of milk a day—that is a $10 to $15 a week saving from this policy. You see, I defend the interests of consumers in my electorate; they do not want to pay subsidies through to dairy farmers. They want a competitive industry and a bit of price competition.So, on the one hand, we have Henry Palaszczuk, the minister in Queensland, calling for an extension of the federal government levy on milk, the tax, and we have the honourable member for Werriwa saying he wants to abolish it altogether. It is about time that Labor made their policy clear. It is pretty obvious that, under Labor, dairy farmers could expect to get absolutely nothing. They would get the same treatment federally that they have got at state level—the industry is deregulated, but absolutely no compensation. They have no plan for dairy farmers. They have no commitment to the industry. They have a confused mishmash of policies that will deliver absolutely nothing to dairy farmers.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Personal Explanations2508315:18:0025083Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Yes, on a matter on which I have made a personal explanation on a number of occasions.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Last week, within its fuel excise backflip, the government declared that it would introduce a monitoring scheme for the fuel grants scheme. That is an acknowledgment that that grants scheme is not being passed on. The Minister for Small Business during question time today misrepresented me by saying that I said—JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—You said it in this chamber.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If the member for McEwen has a point of order, I will hear her, but to date I have only had an indication from the member for Hunter that he was about to indicate where he had been misrepresented, so I have not interrupted him. 8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—The Minister for Small Business during question time today misrepresented me by saying that I, in this place, said that Labor would abolish the fuel grants scheme. I said no such thing. What I did say was that Labor would ensure that that grants scheme was passed on to consumers, the people for whom it was intended.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter has indicated where he was misrepresented.Questions to the Speaker250842508415:19:0025084Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Mr Speaker, it is noted in the proof of yesterday's proceedings of the House and Main Committee that as of 8 o'clock last night members who spoke in the Main Committee have not received the greens of their speeches. I just note that the first record of that is the line:(At 8.00 p.m., the sitting continuing, the balance of the Main Committee report will be published in the Daily Hansard of Tuesday, 6 March 2001.)I was wondering whether you could find out what exactly happened, because it is quite strange, and people have been waiting for those greens.25084SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Yes. I understand from the Secretary of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff—and I will come back to the member for Braddon if my recollection is in any way inaccurate—that yesterday was a day of enormous demand in terms of committee inquiries and bookings for committee rooms, and that the functioning of the Main Committee had not been fully factored into the programming for Hansard reporters. For that reason, the record of the Main Committee was retained in tape form and then prepared. That was the cause of the delay. Clearly, that cannot continue and I have taken that matter up. If there is any other complicating factor, I will report back to the member for Braddon.250842508415:21:0025084Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I have two matters for you, Mr Speaker. The first: under standing order 150, could you please write to the appropriate ministers concerning the delay in answering the following questions: 1906, 1913, 2058, 2059, 2062, 2096, 2116, 2137, 2172, 2195, 2197, 2205, 2235, 2237, 2238—Government members interjecting—K26Mr LATHAM—Most of them are mine. My second question, Mr Speaker: have staff of the Department of the House of Representatives been told that the department is $1 million in the red? Is this the reason so-called parliamentary assistants—students from ANU—have been employed to cover the overtime which would otherwise be worked by permanent staff attendants? Could I put to you that there must be a fairer way of making cost savings. Look around this building and see the wasteful expenditure on a courtyard at the south-eastern part of the building, the enormous amount of money that was spent on an oval that cannot be used, and the number of SES staff within your department. Surely better efficiencies can be made than denying permanent staff their opportunity to work overtime. Could you re-examine this decision, particularly the advisability of the employment of students from ANU to replace the entitlements of permanent attendants?25084SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matters raised by the member for Werriwa. I do not believe that the situation of employment is quite as he has couched it, but I will report back to the House as soon as I can on the employment of so-called student labour.Documents2508425084Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Matters of Public Importance250852508510000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Lilley proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Government to be up front and honest with Australia's pensioners and other social security beneficiaries about the full extent of the clawback of their GST compensation.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:24:0025085Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—When we examine this government's mean clawback of pensioner GST compensation, we are looking at a window on the essential character of the Howard government. We see its mean spirit, we see its deception and we also see its ultimate agenda. The GST has never had anything to do with making the tax system fairer; it is all about taking money from lower and middle income earners to give huge benefits to those at the top, who are this government's favourite minority. Think about this: on 20 March, 3.5 million pensioners and beneficiaries who have lived with an overall inflation rate of four per cent in the second half of last year will receive only a two per cent increase in their pensions and in their benefits. I know that there are some people out there who say that this is just a semantic argument, that it does not really matter. It is not a semantic argument. If you are going to miss out on $4, that means a hell of a lot if you have a tight budget. I do not expect those on the other side of the table with their family trusts and six-figure salaries to understand what it means to lose $4 a week, but I do expect others in this building, including those up in the gallery, to understand what $4 a week means to somebody on a tight budget. To understand what this means you have to understand what clawback means.What does clawback really mean? The department says there is clawback. We have departmental documents that say that. Pensioners say that there is clawback. They are writing letters to the editor and going to their members of parliament and talking about clawback. When the Prime Minister was on the Glenn Milne program on Sunday morning he said that there was no such thing as clawback—everyone who was on a pension or a benefit was doing very well and they had been generously compensated for the GST. He said there was no clawback. But then we produced the departmental internal document which mentions clawback many times. It talks about clawback. It says that `the indexation adjustment to pensions and adult allowance rates for 20 March 2001 will have the additional element of clawback'. Having been sprung by the departmental internal document and memo, the Prime Minister came into the House yesterday and said, `I can't use the word clawback'—although he did a couple of times. He tried to redefine the clawback as an adjustment. He said, `There's going to be an adjustment.' What he is really saying about an adjustment, which is really a clawback, is that the government was so generous to pensioners and beneficiaries on 1 July last year that they do not deserve their full inflation indexation—they do not deserve it; they have been getting too much money.I suppose that is not surprising coming from this Prime Minister because the thing about this Prime Minister is that he is the clawback king. He is the king of clawback. Go through his record over the last quarter of a century. When he was Treasurer in the Fraser government in 1978, he got rid of a whole year's pension increase. He is the king of clawback. The fact is that, even then, `honest John'—and that is what he was named, although it was used in irony—was getting the claw out and taking money back off pensioners and beneficiaries in this country. And he has been doing it ever since. At that stage he presided over a decline in the real level of pensions to well below 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. During this period of government, when he has been the Prime Minister, the pension once again has dropped below 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. We have also had a series of other cuts to the real living standards of pensioners in this country. He has abolished the earnings credit, he has taken away by not deeming the first $2,000 of pensioners' savings—he has essentially attacked money that they have saved for essential repairs or for funerals. There is a heap of other changes to the pension which have all been part of a consistent pattern of clawback—a pattern which has eroded the living standards of low income earners in this country. Before we talk about the full extent of the erosion or the clawback of the GST compensation, we have to talk about what is happening on the other side of the ledger, because what this government has done is implement the biggest clawback of all—the 10 per cent GST, which represents double taxation for the elderly of this country. Having worked hard all their lives to make this country what it is today, and having paid tax on the basis of income, suddenly, when they retire, this Prime Minister turns around with the biggest clawback of all and slaps a 10 per cent GST on all the necessities of life, clawing back their standard of living. So we have 10 per cent GST on electricity and on gas bills and so on. That is the clawback. The compensation package which was based on the government's then estimate of 1.9 per cent inflation is woefully inadequate, which is why beneficiaries and pensioners are so angry about how out of touch and about how mean this government has become.The inflation they are facing at the supermarket is far higher. All those items that this government claimed were going to drop in price, those basic grocery items without the GST, have in fact risen in price. In fact, if you look at the estimates that the government made for price reductions for basic food items, you see they claimed that 24 out of 28 basic food items were going to drop in price. They did not; 20 of them rose instead. I know the Minister for Community Services over there might not know what the price of baked beans or Vegemite is, but this government said they were going to fall in price—and they have not fallen in price; they have risen. That stockbroker over there, the minister, who spends all his time at the boardroom table, has not got the faintest idea what it is like at the kitchen table, where these people on low incomes are forking out for the necessities of life and having their GST compensation eaten up by price rises at the supermarket. That is the point and that is why there is so much upset and hurt in the community. You should take heed of what is being said in the community. Here is a letter that appeared in the Australian on 27 February:I write to express my outrage at the news that John Howard and his flint-hearted Government are about to deliver a kick in the shins to aged pensioners.... ... ...This low act comes at a time when we learn that the taxation of trust funds is to be shelved—sure, why tax the rich when you can claw back money from social security recipients?I'm only sorry that I have but one vote with which I can express my disgust at the next election.The mood in the community has gone from a slow burn on the GST to white heat over the GST. People are enraged to think that a compensation package that the government spent $500 million promoting has been such a bad deal for them, a bad deal on the necessities of life, a bad deal on services and a bad deal in the supermarket. So that anger in the community has been growing and it is now growing even more because of clawback, because of the specific components of clawback that are about to hit them on 20 March, because this Prime Minister did not tell them anything about the 20 March clawback. This is the booklet that went out right around the country before the last election—no mention in this booklet of a two per cent clawback there, was there, Minister?PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—Which page?2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Yes; which page is it? Please tell us which page it is, Minister. The best you could do in this House last week was to say that it was in this booklet of March-April last year. That is a bit late—isn't it, Minister? But even when you examine that, if you have a look at the place where the pension increases are highlighted, you see that it says, `All pensions up by four per cent.' You have to come over here to the real fine print to see some acknowledgment of what this minister trumpets in this House as telling people the truth. You did not tell them the truth in this document either. You hid it in this document as you hid it from people before the election. There was no mention of clawback, and that is the problem. We then get to the situation of the House today when both the Prime Minister and the minister here were asked a series of very basic questions about the impact of clawback—about what $4 a fortnight or $4 a week really means to someone's living standards—and the opposition were treated with contempt, because you did not even bother to do the basic research nor did you even have the decency to acknowledge that this is going to occur. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Lilley will address his remarks through the chair.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—I certainly will, Mr Deputy Speaker. The truth is that large numbers of people in this community are going to be worse off in absolute terms: on 20 March 170,000 people in this community will receive an overall cut in their benefit.Opposition members—How many?2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—One hundred and seventy thousand will receive an overall cut in their benefit. The minister knows that: it has been published in his own internal departmental newsletter, Not The RAT News—I think it is appropriately named. So 170,000 people will receive a cut and 450,000—nearly half a million people—are going to have a reduction in their rent assistance, and that is going to erode their overall increase in payments. Is it any wonder therefore that the pensioners association is complaining about the fact that on 20 March many pensioners who receive rent assistance will only receive something like a $2 increase to see them right through until next September. No wonder they are white hot about this government and no wonder they are white hot about the inadequacies of the compensation. I quote from their release of yesterday:“We challenge the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Vanstone—Where is Senator Vanstone? Has anyone seen her in the last couple of weeks? Does she exist? Is she the Minister for Family and Community Services? Why do they keep pushing this Minister for Community Services out all the time? Perhaps he is expendable—to show just where and when pensioners were told that the GST compensation clawback provisions would apply to these allowances. The Government has not simply been loose with the truth—they have failed to be honest or open about the maintenance of the GST compensation package for Australia's pensioners,” ...Not only does it hit rent assistance; it also hits pharmaceutical allowance and it also hits telephone allowance, so the government gets them coming and going, because it is simply so mean. This fits into this grand pattern of 25 years of John Howard clawback—all of those factors I mentioned before going right back to 1978: knocking off the pension increase, changing the deeming rules, taking away the earnings credit scheme, taking away the financial advisers from Centrelink—doing all of those things to hack away at the standard of living of some of the lowest income Australians.Then we get to the ridiculous situation in this House yesterday where this minister came in and then the Prime Minister came in with a graph to demonstrate how generous they are. But what the Prime Minister did not understand, because I guess he has some problems with figures, is that this graph up here, which shows the pension increase that has occurred including GST compensation, and this one here, which shows what would have happened with pensions if there had not been a GST, are actually coming together. So the government actually proved the case that we have been making: that the compensation is actually being gobbled up and that, if this keeps going, it will not be there at all. I simply could not believe how ignorant and stupid these ministers were in tabling a document which simply disproves their case. Perhaps they had not been adequately briefed or perhaps it really gets down to this: they simply do not understand because they are so out of touch that they have not got a clue what a dollar a week or $2 a week or $4 a week means to someone who is battling. If you look at that clever graph, it shows, as I said before, two lines converging rapidly. In September 2000, the difference between them was $15 a week. In March 2001, the difference is just $7 a week. So the compensation is just being clawed back again—taken away from these people—as prices continue to go up and they continue to go backwards. That is undeniable. And then we had them carry on about the record of the Labor Party when it comes to pensions. It is a much better record than yours, Minister.Let us just go through the record of the coalition on the 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. You fell below 25 per cent in December 1997, March 1998, June 1998, September 1998, December 1998, March 1999, June 1999, December 1999, March 2000, June 2000 and September 2000. That is some record! You are permanently behind, because you have always been into clawback. Compare that to our record: we fell behind once and we made a big adjustment to make sure that we did not breach the faith. The pensioners of Australia know where the faith lies, and it lies with those on this side of the House who have consistently opposed your unfair package, who have consistently said, `The government do not defend the battlers, they simply create them.'XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He is constantly referring to me and I think that he should be addressing me through the chair.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Resume your seat.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Minister, you have a lot to answer for. The fact is that you have breached faith with the Australian community. What you have shown is arrogance and base ingratitude. No group in the community has provided this government with stronger support than the elderly. In return for that, you have turned around and clawed back their living standards. You have deceived them—you have deliberately come into this House and deceived them—through what you have done with the GST and its inadequate compensation package. You are weak on the strong and very strong on the weak. (Time expired)15:39:0025088Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I think that the whole House can heave a sigh of relief now that the diatribe from the member for Lilley has ended. Indeed, the member for Lilley is very loose with the truth when it suits him. Of course, the Labor Party are deliberately using older Australians and, indeed, pensioners. We recognise that most pensioners have been extremely frugal throughout their lives and have got to a certain age where they want to retire with dignity and security and have some regularity of financial payments, and what this opposition does all the time is just reduce everything to the lowest common denominator where they use pensioners in particular as political footballs to kick around in the absolute pursuit of power with no respect for older Australians. 849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—Stop patronising them! 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Braddon!XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—This is, of course, totally opportunistic—849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—Stop patronising older Australians!10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I warn the member for Braddon!XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—where they are targeting not only the elderly but also the disabled. One of the arguments that the member for Lilley uses is that we have somehow reduced the payments for older Australians, particular pensioners, at the next indexation point on 20 March. We were quite clear when the new taxation system was introduced, where we have had massive tax cuts and we have abolished the wholesale sales tax system. Yes, we introduced a new tax and, yes, we increased payments, particular social security payments, across the board in order to compensate for any potential reduction in purchasing power due to the new taxation system. When the Labor Party were in government, particularly back in 1993, there was absolutely no compensation for older Australians, or indeed for any Australians, when they wilfully increased the wholesale sales tax regime overnight—whether it went from 10 per cent to 12 per cent or from 20 per cent to 22 per cent. There was no compensation. One of the arguments that the member for Lilley uses is, `We compensated older Australians when we had stewardship of the treasury bench.' The fact is that in the last six years when Labor were in power real wages went down five per cent. This is the party that are allegedly representing the worker—they abandoned the workers years ago. All they represent is the elite within the trade union movement. When real wages went down, no wonder they did not want to index them to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. We introduced that, we put that in, because when interest rates went down we wanted to ensure that pensioners particularly were not disadvantaged as a result of wage increases. Of course, in the last five years of the Howard-Fischer/Howard-Anderson government, wages have gone up nine per cent for low paid workers and we have tied that now to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. That alone has meant that older Australians have had a $13.60 increase that they would never have got if the Australian Labor Party were sitting on this side of the House. And God help them if they do!The argument now is that we did not tell them. The interesting thing is that on 10 July 2000 Nora McGuire from the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation—and they do a great job representing their members—even stated on the ABC's 7.30 report:The four per cent that pensions are being increased is actually a 2 per cent real increase and 2 per cent advance for the March CPI.We stated that. We were very clear about that. We put it in a number of publications. Simon Crean, the member for Hotham, got it right, but the member for Lilley could not get it right. The member for Hotham put out a statement in his electorate explaining that the four per cent increase was made up of two components. This is a good government because we gave them that component nine months in advance—which they would never have received under the Labor Party, leaning back on their indexation points.There was an interesting talkback today on Greg Evans's radio show and I would like to share it with the House. Greg Evans was the presenter and a chap rings in called Barry:Evans: What can we do for you, Barry? What are your thoughts on all of this?This is regarding the clawback beat-up. The discussion continues:Barry: Well, I'm afraid I have to—unless I missed something—I have to really defend the government on this.Evans: Yeah.Barry: I'm an aged pension as my wife is ...Evans: Mmm hmm.Barry: ... and Centrelink, who pays the pension, puts out a very good quarterly publication called Aged Pension News. And as far back as April last year it was made perfectly clear in that publication that the increase in March this year would be affected due to the four per cent pay they'd made in July last year.Evans: Well, that's what the Prime Minister is saying of course and he's saying that because we warned you of that there is no clawback.Barry: Well, that's absolutely right ...Evans: Mm.Barry: ... and I must say that if pensioners read what's given to them instead of complaining all the time ...Evans: No, it's not the pensioners that are complaining here, it's the Opposition understandably, you know.Barry: Yeah, but the pensioners are being sucked into it, Greg.Evans: Mm.Barry: You know, I think it's a political beat up, quite frankly.A political beat-up. This is talkback. The discussion continues:Evans: Okay. Barry: And the other point I'd just quickly like to make is that if you look at the twelve months from March 2000 to March 2001, assuming that the two per cent increase is going to be paid ...Evans: Mm.Barry: ... the percentage increase in pensions according to my mathematics is ...Evans: Will be six ...Barry: ... seven-point-eight.Evans: Yeah.Barry: Which is well ahead of inflation. So, I really think it's just a beat up and I just wish the government ...Of course, the lesson for us is that we should obviously get out and market our products more by telling pensioners that this is a total beat-up by the Australian Labor Party. The talkback caller went on:Barry: Well, to clear it up because I think the anti ... ah ... well, the pensioner groups are being sucked in on it. People are ... pensioners who just don't understand the mathematics of it are being suck [sic] in by it.Of course, they are being sucked into it by the Australian Labor Party. I think it was opportunistic of them to take advantage of it. Again, I suppose, the criticism of us could be that we should be getting out there and telling people that these are fraudulent lies that the Australian Labor Party are saying. The interview went on, and is just one example of a talkback caller from Melbourne yesterday.You have to ask yourself what the member for Lilley is talking about when he says that we are allowing members to have trusts and we are doing nothing. It is this government, my friend, that is introducing legislation—we have actually done it; it is coming into force in 2001. We are saying to people, particularly those who own trusts or private companies, that we do not believe that they should be entitled to social security payments. It is this government that is putting propriety back into the system to ensure that people who may be using those vehicles are not paid social security, which the Labor Party never did anything about. They never did anything because their masters are not only the elite of the trade union movement but, indeed, some among the elite of the business sector. This government has not only been pursuing welfare reform but is making a fairer system, particularly for people who are claiming social security payments and particularly for pensioners.The member for Lilley also claims that those people have gone backwards. But it was this government that, when it came to private health insurance, introduced the 30 per cent rebate, which is fundamentally important for older Australians because they cannot get into the public hospital system. The money that we give to the states, particularly Labor states, does not go back into those public hospital services. It is this government that gave that rebate to all Australians, and it is particularly older Australians who have been direct recipients of that.Talking about other issues where the Labor Party claim to have looked after people, not only pensioners: what happened to the tax cuts? Do you remember those? Do you remember the tax cuts that were promised that would have benefited all Australians? As soon as Labor got back in in 1993, they were abolished. Now that definitely was a clawback; that was a clawback that was never delivered. You talked about other increases, particularly in Medicare. Carmen Lawrence denied news reports that the Medicare levy was to go up. There was no proposal to increase the levy, but they jacked it up straightaway. Or do you remember the Commonwealth Bank? Talk about a breach of trust. A letter from the Treasurer back then, in the Commonwealth bank prospectus, said that the government had no intention whatsoever of further reducing its shareholding. This was an ironclad agreement. But of course what did they do? Within months they sold off the rest of the bank and the proceeds just went into recurrent expenditure. The record of the Australian Labor Party, what they say and what they do, in regard to older Australians—and all Australians—is absolutely abominable. When we talk about older Australians, what we have donewhich has been very beneficialis to reduce the withdrawal rate. If older Australians choose to work and earn, say, more than $102 a fortnight, we have said to them that instead of losing 50 cents in the dollar they lose only 40 cents. That was a positive move to encourage older Australians if they wanted to take part-time work. We have made changes to capital gains tax, which of course the Australian Labor Party introduced. We have introduced franking credits, which is particularly important. And, most importantly, we have introduced the savings bonus. The savings bonus has gone to over 1.7 million Australians. On average, over 74 per cent have received in excess of $500. What compensation was there when Labor were in power when they—as I mentioned before—increased, without any consultation, the wholesale sales tax regime, which had a dramatic effect on older Australians? And they never had pensions tied to 25 per cent of male total weekly earnings. They actually had only two adjustments separately, and they were, just coincidentally, prior to an election.We have been very up front with pensioners and particularly with older Australians with regard to GST compensation. There was a four per cent increase in July, which was made up of a two per cent real increase above the rate of inflation and a two per cent advance. They had an increase again in September of last year and they will get another increase on 20 March this year. Again, we have guaranteed that people on pensions will be two per cent ahead of the rate of inflation. This graph demonstrates the shallowness of the debating point by the member for Lilley. It states that older Australians and those on pensions are receiving $30 more today than they received in June last year. They would have received significantly less, of course, if the Australian Labor Party had been in power.We have also changed the means test, which is very important for pensioners. We have increased the thresholds by 2.5 per cent, both on income and assets. We have also increased the income cut-off levels for part-time pensions. So we believe that, if you are on a pension or on a part-time pension and you want to find some extra work to have some more earnings, then we will recognise that and integrate your payment back into the social security system, which the Australian Labor Party never did. It is interesting when you look at the actual amount since 1996: pensions have gone up $58 since then. We recognise that this reflects the rate of inflation, and let us remember that it was this government which reduced inflation substantially from the double-digit figures of the halcyon days of the Keating-Hawke stewardship—XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—The hell days.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Yes, the hell days, as the Chief Government Whip says. Or, to put it another way, that is $1,500 a year that they are receiving today that they would not have received, and that is entirely appropriate for older Australians, to ensure that they are compensated. The Labor Party are just using older Australians as a political football to make points, which is scaremongering. But also the Labor Party knew only too well about the compensation that we put into place last July. The member for Hotham even wrote to all his constituents explaining it. But no, of course, little tricky dicky over here continues to masquerade in the sense that—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The minister will refer to the member for Lilley by his correct title.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—I get overly enthusiastic, Mr Deputy Speaker. The issue that is continuing to be portrayed here is that we did not inform people. We did, through numerous publications. We have been a good government in the sense of the compensation measures that we have put in place, and particularly the last two indexation increases. The indexation of rent assistance was actually introduced by the Labor Party in 1993. The Labor Party know full well how the indexation arrangements work. We have ensured that for those who are paying at the maximum rate in particular it has been increased further, from seven per cent to 10 per cent. That will benefit over 550,000 people right across this country. In between those minimum thresholds and maximum thresholds we are paying 75c in every dollar. Certainly, in some areas, because of the adjustment process and the picture in time, there may be some adjustments. However, the important point is that, because of the overall compensation that we are paying, those on pensions or other social security payments in particular will be significantly better off. Of course they are going to be significantly better off with a government which has been far more responsible, particularly with policies for older Australians, than the Labor Party will ever be. (Time expired)15:54:0025092Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The Minister for Community Services, in his response to the shadow minister, said, `You are just making points and using pensioners.' Of course we are. We are pointing out to the pensioners of Australia and to the government where the government is clawing back some of their fixed income. The minister said that we did not compensate for wholesale sales tax increases. The wholesale sales tax had a different base. It certainly was not a tax on the essentials, like the GST is. That argument is totally false. The minister mentioned the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance. I would point out that there is $3 billion that is not in public hospitals in this country. In my electorate I do not think there is one doctor that is now bulk-billing. Medicare rebates to doctors have stagnated and this is having a big effect on pensioners.These are the pensioners that were born in the 1920s or before. These are the pensioners that went through the Depression. These are the people that went to war and defended this country. Then, in the 1950s and 1960s, they helped build our great nation. The people in my electorate who are in this age group—the people that have gone on to reach this time of their life—have been through many governments in their lifetime. There have been many dangers, many fears for their country, many difficulties and many uncertainties. They have raised families. And then they end up with the Howard-Anderson government. They end up with a government that wants to claw back some of the lousy cost of living increase that will help them continue to be able to purchase and to have the quality of life that they enjoy. This government, in all its meanness, is probably the worst government that any pensioner has had to deal with. The Howard-Anderson government is a very bad, mean government. I do not believe this measure is going to work—this government knows that it is not going to work—and we are going to see another backdown. There will be another backdown like the one on petrol. This minister will have to do a backflip. The government should be up-front and apologise for this effort to claw back the compensation from the pensioners.The government has decided that it needs compensation because of the impact that the GST has had on the price of just about everything. The next thing we know it is trying to get the compensation back. After it had paid it, it is now trying to get it back with clawback. The increases are real. The increases to pensioners are real. Pensioners know that their costs have gone up. They know now that the GST is starting to bite into their quality of life. It is starting to bite into their incomes. The other day a pensioner from Strahan in my electorate rang me and said that the GST compensation of $4 in his normal age pension had made his rent allowance decrease by $8. He was $4 worse off last December. The CPI will increase on 20 March when a supposed increase in the pension should occur. He should get his four per cent, but he will not. His pension will go up by half the CPI increase, so he will now be $10 worse off than he was before any of the increases. When you apply this to the other costs that a person on a fixed income has to put up with, you see that pensioners have had it hard. Under this government, it is getting harder. We also know from the latest announcement that there are 170,000 low income families and youth allowance recipients who will have an outright cut in their benefits, since the rent assistance cuts will not be offset by the two per cent in their primary benefit. We had the minister, just at the end of his speech—I thought the light had come on; I thought he would not get there—admitting that there would be some adjustments and that some people would miss out. I would like to see the Prime Minister try to live on a real pension—the one that has no superannuation payments attached; I would like to see how he would feel about the cost of petrol, the price of his electricity bill—that is going up now for pensioners as the GST starts to come on—and the cost of going to a doctor and the lack of bulk-billing. Most pensioners pay up front and then wait two or three weeks to get back their rebate. All of these increased costs are impacts, imposts, from the GST. We should ask the other minister, the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, the guy who is getting a bit of a take out of the 70 poker machines, how he would go on a pension. I wonder if he would feel the effect of the GST on his pocket. Another core promise broken is that pensioners would be on 25 per cent of average weekly earnings and nothing would affect that. Well, it has been affected and, of course, the relative cost of living has gone up. The point that I am sure will not be lost is that this government is penalising pensioners and unemployment recipients—all people who are poor. I think that last year this government breached—gave the cane to—200,000 unemployed people for not attending interviews at Centrelink offices. This government targets people who are on low incomes, people who are at the bottom end of our economic system. While we are looking at what the government is actually doing here and now by clawing back two per cent of four per cent from pensioners, let's look at its overall policies: for education—increasing the education dollar to private schools; and its attitude to family trusts, which means more money for people at the higher end of the system in which we live. So we see that richer people are doing better under this government than pensioners who will have half of that four per cent increase for the cost of living clawed back. They lose two per cent of that increase. Private schools gain and of course family trusts gain. People who can afford to pay more tax, pay less tax. This is a very mean government that we have here. I am told by some pensioners that every time the postman comes, they worry about the bills: energy bills are starting to come in, and the GST is on them; the rates, the phone, and their health needs—the cost of all these activities is starting to go up. Your quality of life depends on your recreational needs. If you cannot afford to play bowls any more or you cannot afford to go down the road with your friends, that impinges on your quality of life. That is because the GST is ripping a bit out of your fixed income. We always said that it was going to affect people's quality of life, and of course we see that it is. Telephone bills, in particular, differ for pensioners because of the hidden costs in special deals offered by some providers. Non-Telstra carries are apparently applying the GST without stipulating that on the bills. I have been told by one pensioner that the telephone allowance has gone up only 40c, yet the telephone line rental has increased by $5.85. This government really is tough and strong on the poor. They are a bad government, a mean government. I believe they have lost and will continue to lose the support of the Australian people with this clawback of two per cent. (Time expired)16:04:0025093Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—This is a government which cares about all Australians, particularly the elderly and pensioners amongst our ranks. It is in fact contrary to what the member for Lilley and the member for Franklin, in their expansive rhetoric, would have us believe this afternoon. Contrary to that rhetoric, it is actually a mark of this government's care for pensioners that this measure was introduced. It reverses the unfair system where pensioners, under the Labor government, were always having to play catch-up with inflation, so far as their pension increases were concerned. Anybody who wishes to understand this debate ought first to understand historically the situation so far as the impact of inflation, or CPI as it is referred to, had on pensions. Historically under the Labor government, when inflation went up, as it did, pensions were always catching up with that increase in inflation six months after it occurred. So if inflation went up by four per cent or five per cent and there was a six-monthly adjustment in the pensions, that adjustment was to take account of the increase in inflation over the previous six months. So pensioners were only ever getting back to an even-keel position after every six months in which the pension was adjusted. That was the system, which persisted under the Labor Party when they occupied the government benches in this parliament. As I said, it is a mark of our care for pensioners and older Australians that we have abolished that system and put in place a system where there is an adjustment made six-monthly in advance to take account of inflation. What compounded the system under the Labor government was that we had a period when the Labor Party was in government when inflation in this country was running at exorbitant levels—far higher than they are today. Not only were pensioners playing catch-up in terms of the CPI and their pensions; they were playing catch-up when the rate of inflation was almost vertical under the Labor Party in government.What have we done in relation to this? First of all, we are not clawing back any of the CPI adjustment; we are simply reflecting the new system which was put in place—and I will explain that—when the new tax system came into operation. If we had done what the Labor Party seems to be suggesting today, then on 1 July last year, when the new tax system came into operation, we would have increased pensions by two per cent. And then, if your system had operated, we simply would have waited until the next period of adjustment came around, to March of this year, and increased it again. We did not do that. We said to pensioners of Australia—and I will go to where we set this out in the documentation—`We know there is a CPI effect from these changes. Instead of just increasing it by two per cent to take account of that change on 1 July, we will increase it now by four per cent so you are not out of pocket and then we will make the adjustment in March of this year so that it reflects putting it up the full two per cent.' If you go to the tax fact sheet for aged and other pensioners, which was available and which I distributed hundreds, if not thousands, of in my electorate, we said this:The Government will increase the maximum rates of all social security and service pensions by 4 per cent from 1 July 2000.We went on to explain:The 4 per cent increase will consist of an upfront advance of 2 per cent and a real increase of 2 per cent. This will ensure that pensioners will be ahead at least 2 per cent, regardless of the actual `price effect' of the goods and services tax (GST)—that is, how the GST will affect the Consumer Price Index ....What we were saying was that we were not going to simply put this up by two per cent and take a chance that you might be adversely affected by the GST coming into operation. We said we were going to double that and make sure it was up four per cent at the outset so that when the CPI impact had its bearing over the period from 1 July, over the last nine months, those pensioners would not be adversely affected. That is what we did. That was quite clear at the time. Let me refer to the Age Pension News of March-April 2000. This was before this measure came into operation. Page 9 of the Age Pension News of March-April 2000 said:The four per cent increase to your pension or allowance is made up from two amounts: · a two per cent real increase above the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This part of the increase is above and beyond any other increase that would have been payable to you; and · a two per cent advance increase in rates to offset the anticipated first-year effect of the GST on the CPI. This advance ensures pensioners and allowees will benefit from the very start of The New Tax System. The two per cent real increase will be paid on top of the normal indexation arrangements for movements in prices and wages. This means that all pensioners and allowees will always be two per cent better off, regardless of the effect of the GST on prices. The September 2000 increase to your pension will occur as usual. This compensates for the January to June 2000 price movements. The March 2001 increase will be adjusted to take into account the 2 per cent advance already provided in July 2000.I repeat that sentence:The March 2001 increase will be adjusted to take account of the 2 per cent advance already provided in July 2000.This is what the Labor Party, the member for Lilley and the member for Franklin are complaining about. If there were any validity in this attack that has been mounted by the Labor Party today, we would have heard in March, April, May and June of last year when there was discussion about the new tax system coming into operation. We would have heard from these members opposite that this was not an appropriate way to deal with this particular measure and that in fact we should just have been increasing the amount by two per cent. But nary a word did we hear then from those opposite. Indeed, as has been pointed out by others in this debate, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Hotham, Mr Crean, put out an information kit, as many of us did, in his electorate in which he said:The real increase in the pension will therefore be two per cent.This man who sits on the benches opposite says to the Australian nation, `I will make a better Treasurer for the Australian nation than the current Treasurer.' This man holds himself up in this place and elsewhere as the person who has the economic, financial and similar credentials to be in charge of the purse strings of this country. Mr Crean, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, said in his information kit, which he put out to his electorate:The real increase in the pension will therefore be two per cent.That statement in itself gives the lie to the proposition being advanced by the Labor Party here this week. The word `opportunism' has been bandied around in relation to what is being proposed by the Labor Party. There is probably no more appropriate word than that in this regard. The increase last year in fact involved two amounts that were paid—in effect $7.45, a real increase, and an advance of $7.45. And the adjustment, as we said, is taking place now. I said at the outset that this is a government which cares about all Australians—about all people, and particularly about those who are the least fortunate economically and otherwise within our society. It is the very meeting of that objective by this government, the very concern for those people, which led to this mechanism being put in place by the government so that they would not be in any way worse off as a result of these changes. In fact, by indexing pensions to the male total average weekly earnings and providing the compensation to pensioners, we can see that pensions have now risen to $402. If it had been under the Labor system, pensions would have been only $379.39 a fortnight. Quite clearly, in terms of the quantum, the total amount that is being provided to pensioners, there has been a real increase of around $30 since July last year over what would have been provided by the Labor government.As I said, this is a government which cares about all people—about all Australians, and particularly about pensioners. This is an opportunistic attack by a Labor Party whose only contribution to public policy in Australia at the present time is to find the latest thing to nitpick about, to scare particularly elderly people and pensioners. They ought to be ashamed of this attack. They know it has no substance. If it had substance, they would have said something about it last year. If it had substance, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would be up here saying something different from what he said in his own information kit. This is nothing but an opportunistic attack from a lazy party that has no policies, no program and no proposals of any real value for the people of Australia. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded. Bills25096Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bill:International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2001Committees25096250962509610000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories on the sale of the Christmas Island resort be extended to 18 June 2001.250962509625096Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 26 March 2001. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 26 March 2001Pursuant to standing order 331, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 26 March 2001. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION RE--PORTSPresentation and statements1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELE--GA--TION TO BANGLADESH AND INDIA: An emerging South Asia: Report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Bangladesh and India (12 November to 24 November 2000).The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 12.45 p.m.Speech time limits —Each Member — 5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]2 ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION — STANDING COM-MIT--TEE: International financial markets — Friends or foes?The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 1.15 p.m.Speech time limits —First 2 Members speaking — 10 minutes each.Other Members — 5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1 Mr Katter: To present a bill for an Act to amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921, and for related purposes. (Excise Tariff Amendment (Petrol Indexation) Bill 2001 — Notice given 27 February 2001.)Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 15 minutes — pursuant to sessional order 104A.2 Mr Katter: To present a bill for an Act to amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921, and for related purposes. (Excise Tariff Amendment (Rural and Regional Infrastructure) Bill 2001 — Notice given 27 February 2001.)Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 15 minutes — pursuant to sessional order 104A.3 Dr 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. (Australian Bill of Rights Bill 2001 — Notice given 5 March 2001.) Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 15 minutes — pursuant to sessional order 104A.4 Mr Price: To move—(1) That a Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing be appointed to inquire into:(a) proposals for the annual estimates and the additional estimates for the House of Representatives;(b) proposals to vary the staff structure of the House of Representatives, and staffing and recruitment policies; and(c) such other matters as are referred to it by the House;(2) That the committee shall:(a) in relation to estimates—(i) determine the amounts for inclusion in the parliamentary appropriation bills for the annual and the additional appropriations; and(ii) report to the House upon its determinations prior to the consideration by the House of the relevant parliamentary appropriation bill; and(b) in relation to staffing—(i) make recommendations to the Speaker; and(ii) report to the House on its determinations prior to the consideration by the House of the relevant parliamentary appropriation bill;(3) That the committee consist of the Speaker and 11 other members, 6 members to be nominated by the Chief Government Whip or Whips and 5 members to be nominated by the Chief Opposition Whip or Whips or any independent Member;(4) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair;(5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chairman at that meeting;(6) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine;(7) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;(8) That the quorum of a subcommittee be a majority of the members of that subcommittee;(9) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the public proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;(10) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records;(11) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place;(12) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House;(13) That the committee have leave to report from time to time; and(14) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (Notice given 9 October 2000.)Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits —Mover of motion — 10 minutes.First Government Member speaking — 10 minutes.Next 2 Members speaking — 10 minutes each.Other Members — 5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 4 x 10 mins, 1 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.250972509716:16:0025097Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the first and second reports for 2001 of the committee relating to: Remediation of Defence land at Neutral Bay, Sydney; and Defence Housing Authority responses to recommendations in the 10th report of 2000, development of 90 apartments in Darwin. Ordered that the reports be printed.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—by leave—The first report that I have tabled concerns the proposed remediation of Defence land at Neutral Bay, Sydney, New South Wales. The remediation of the Defence land—the site of the former HMAS Platypus—is intended to do two things: first, it will mitigate Commonwealth liability for the contamination of the site; and, secondly, it maximises the revenue to the Commonwealth from the sale of the site. Once remediated, the site is intended for use as a residential development. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $16.5 million. This includes design; site establishment and environmental controls; demolition and excavation; the treatment and removal of contaminated materials; the backfilling and compaction of clean fill; seawall protection works; and management of contaminated groundwater. The estimated cost includes a construction contingency and a price indexation adjustment over the proposed remediation period. The committee has recommended that the proposed remediation proceed. The conclusions of the committee were, first, that the contamination on the site is causing ongoing pollution to the Neutral Bay area and the surrounding environment; secondly, that remediation of the site may mitigate the Commonwealth's liability for the contamination of the site; and, thirdly, that the proposed work represents value for money and has potential to maximise the revenue return to the Commonwealth from the future sale.The committee acknowledges that nearby residents have concerns about the remediation. However, it believes two factors will minimise the impact of the proposed remediation on the amenity of the local area. They are: conditions imposed by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales; and actions proposed to be taken by the contractor over the time required to remediate the site. The issue of most concern to all stakeholders is that of ground contamination. This is the legacy of the gasworks constructed in the late 1800s. The committee found that the site is subject to contamination flowing from the ground beneath an adjacent residential property and that, under the remediation proposal, the Commonwealth would meet the cost of a contamination management system. In the committee's opinion, responsibility for drainage from the adjacent site is the responsibility of the New South Wales government, both now and in the future. The committee is firmly of the view that the Commonwealth should be exempted from any future legal liability of the site, over which it does not have ownership but which in fact may continue to affect the Commonwealth site. Accordingly, the committee has made two recommendations. First, it recommends that the Minister for Defence write to the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority requesting that the authority consider issuing an investigation under part 3 of the New South Wales Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 in respect of the adjacent land; and, secondly, it recommends that the Department of Defence investigate the possibility of being compensated for (1) any damage caused by the mitigation onto the former HMAS Platypus site by off-site contaminants and (2) costs associated with remediation and installation of a management system for such contaminants.In all its inquiries, the committee gives specific attention to heritage and environmental issues. They must have priority in any proposed work submitted for consideration. They can never be just an afterthought. The committee believes that, where practicable, features of cultural and historical significance attached to public works should be preserved and bequeathed to future generations. From time to time, the committee has faced challenges in determining how others assess some features to be significant—either culturally or historically. In the case of the remediation at Neutral Bay, the committee had to assess how some of the community had come to see retaining walls, remnant pipes, traces of tar and other chemicals and a cliff profile as being in need of preservation. The committee expects that Defence will photograph and carefully document features of heritage and historical value that have been identified. This should be done in consultation with the Australian Heritage Commission and the Australian National Archives. With respect to the heritage value of the cliff at the rear of the site, the committee is of the opinion that a satisfactory solution would be to re-create a straight vertical face at the back of the site when excavations are completed. Then the cliff will continue to appear as it currently does—that is, a single excavation along the waterfront. In conclusion, I thank the Department of Defence and, in particular, Mr Bernard Blackley and Mr Matthew Beggs for their assistance during the inquiry. The information provided to the committee by the department included an independent audit of the works costs and an independent legal opinion as to the Commonwealth's future liability with respect to the site. This information greatly assisted the committee and it set a benchmark which other agencies would do well to follow. Before commenting on the second report that I have tabled, I would like to briefly pay tribute to the work of Ian Ireland in the Parliamentary Library. Ian was seconded to the committee's secretariat last year, and since then he has demonstrated an impressive affinity with the role and work of the committee. We will miss his attention to detail and his good nature on the committee. In large measure, the final responsibility to draft the report that I have just tabled rested with Ian, and I commend the report to the House.The second report that I have tabled is a sequel to the committee's 10th report of 2000. It is unusual for the committee to report in such a fashion, and so I will provide some brief background information. The committee's 10th report of 2000 was tabled on 11 October. It presented findings and recommendations in relation to a proposal to develop three residential apartment towers in Darwin. The proposal was presented by the Defence Housing Authority, or DHA as it is more commonly known. Under the heading of `General comments', the committee concluded its 10th report by stating:After months of investigation the Committee still has serious concerns about aspects of the proposal ... The Committee believes DHA must do more work before the Parliament can endorse the proposal.The Committee concludes that the development of apartment towers in Carey Street, Darwin by the Defence Housing Authority should not proceed until all the Committee's recommendations have been met.The Committee recommends that the Defence Housing Authority report to the Committee when it has complied with all the recommendations contained in this report.In accordance with the last recommendation, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence wrote to the committee on 8 November 2000 providing the committee with the response to its recommendation. The committee considered the response, advising the minister that it had: agreed to DHA proceeding with the issue and the evaluation of tenders and obtaining an updated market appraisal; accepted a response to recommendation 6 concerning a cost-benefit analysis of the Defence rental assistance program; and resolved that the construction of the proposed work not proceed until the committee's recommendations, with the exception of recommendation 6, had been met. The committee also advised DHA that it required a more detailed response than that initially provided.The report I have tabled today presents the committee's findings and conclusions in relation to material provided after the tabling of the 10th report of 2000 and, in particular, a detailed response and accompanying reports provided by DHA on 1 February 2001. The committee has found DHA willing to comply with all of its recommendations. Its willingness to comply with the committee's recommendations has been evident in the provision of the detailed response and the commissioning of various technical reports. This willingness was also evident in a recent meeting between all members of the DHA board of directors, led by the chairman of the board, Mr Peter Jollie, and members of the committee. The committee recognises that there are challenges for a Commonwealth agency, such as DHA, which is charged with operating in a commercial environment while remaining accountable to the parliament. The committee is firmly of the view that, while at times it may be difficult to achieve a balance between commercial imperatives and accountability to the parliament, it is not impossible to do so and that the processes must be adhered to. Since tabling its 10th report of 2000, the committee has reviewed DHA's proposal for apartment towers at Carey Street in Darwin. At this time the committee has some reluctance in approving the proposed work. This reluctance is linked to the need for the work and the operation of the rental assistance program. The committee states in its report that, following approval by the committee, the DHA board of directors will proceed to consider whether the work will go ahead. Because of the way DHA is established, the board of directors will accept responsibility for the success or otherwise of the work. The committee concludes that the parliament should not delay the board from its final consideration of the proposal. I commend the report to the House.Bills25100S26425100Bill 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.Bills25100R118025100Debate resumed from 5 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”.16:27:0025100Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—The debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 [No. 2] was interrupted last night, and I want to briefly recap my argument. I took a considerable interest in this bill because, when I was shadow minister for small business, we made this issue one of the central planks of our small business platform in the lead-up to the 1996 election. In fact, I mentioned in the House last night that I debated the issue of unfair dismissal in the Newcastle markets from the back of a truck with the then Labor government minister Senator Schacht. That led to considerable public debate on the issue and considerable media coverage, to the point where the then Labor Prime Minister promised to review the unfair dismissal provision because it was evident that it was causing great difficulties within the small business community.As I said last night—and I will repeat it—I think all of us in this House believe in a fair system, one that treats workers fairly and treats employers fairly. If employers cannot go about the business that they are engaged in and if they are caught up in long legal battles about unfair dismissal because of the way the provision currently works, despite our attempts to amend it, then their opportunity to grow their businesses and to employ more people is impeded. I went through a number of reports last night that contained ample evidence that this particular measure—introduced by Labor originally—is still causing enormous difficulties within the small business community. This bill essentially proposes amendments to the current bill, and the 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.This bill does not affect the scope of state unfair dismissal laws or the federal laws dealing with unlawful dismissal. There are plenty of provisions in place to ensure that workers are protected in the workplace. On eight occasions this bill has been voted down by Labor in one form or another. On five occasions it has been voted down by the Australian Democrats in the Senate. I suggest that this action will continue to impede the growth, development and health of our small businesses. There are protections in place to look after the interests of employees, but if small business people—and I am talking about the small family businesses of Australia which form the backbone of our business community—continue to be impeded in the operation of their businesses in the way they are by these measures, it would certainly put a dampener on our economic growth and employment opportunities. No-one is served by not having the dignity of work and being disadvantaged because they do not take home a regular pay packet. I suggest it is very important that we give consideration to these amendments and that we get them passed in the interests of small business and in the interests of future employment in Australia.16:31:0025101Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I rise to speak in this debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 [No. 2].I would like to start by analysing the rhetoric that this government spouts in relation to industrial relations as compared with the reality and to make some comments about the clear divergence between the two. I would then like to come to the details of this bill. First of all, let us have a look at the government's rhetoric. As we all know, day after day the current Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and his predecessor spend question time railing against unionism. I notice that the minister is joining us for this debate; he is very welcome. The minister is often ably assisted in these endeavours by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, who seems unable to answer a question without railing against teacher unions. If we want any proof of that proposition, we just have to cast our minds back to question time today where the minister again railed against a teacher union, on this occasion the Queensland Teachers Union. Anti-union rhetoric is the cornerstone of the government's industrial relations policy. Its justification for industrial relations changes is often predicated on the need to control what it sees as big and powerful unions. The imagery that this government constantly seeks to draw to justify its industrial relations stance is of big unions holding employers and the country to ransom. That is the rhetoric, that is the fairytale, that is the imagery that this government tries to draw, but behind that picture there is a more disturbing reality which is that, properly viewed, this government's industrial relations reform is not about containing the industrially strong; it is about laying open to further exploitation the industrially weak. This government came to office with a vision for industrial relations, a vision of ensuring that the law only protected a minimum number of allowable matters, a minimum number of issues for workers, and beyond that workers would have to bargain. The vision then ran on to the creation of an industrial relations system where the industrially weak workers, the price takers in the system, would be in a position of having to sign up to Australian workplace agreements which, of course, were designed by their employer and met their employer's needs. Lest there be any doubt about this, let us recall that the greatest uptake rate of Australian workplace agreements was in the Victorian public sector under the Kennett government. Everybody knows that those agreements were in absolutely standard form, designed by the Kennett government as the employer. The only thing that varied from agreement to agreement was in the name slot: one would say `Julia Gillard' and another one would say `Tony Abbott'. In those circumstances, we know crystal clear that this was never about workers bargaining with some sort of market power for individually determined outcomes for things that might have suited their own employment position. This was about an employer saying, `Here, take this.' That was the vision that this government had for industrial relations—industrially weak workers being put in a position where the employer said, `Here's your agreement: take it and sign it.' This is a vision of an atomised industrial relations system where every worker is doing the best they can for themselves but they really are not able to do very much, unless of course they happen to be in a premium market position because of a skills shortage or the like.To concrete this vision of individualised industrial relations into place, the government had to design a system which would fracture unionism in those sections of the work force which were unionised. So the government designed a collective bargaining system which, subject to certain procedural requirements being met, makes it lawful for unions to take industrial action and lawful for employers to use sanctions such as lockouts against workers. The government had in mind two outcomes when it designed this system. First, it hoped that hardline employers would use tactics like lockouts to break workers and their unions, and to some extent that has occurred but I suspect nowhere near as widely as the government would have liked. Secondly, the government was hoping that workers would move away from traditional union structures and engage in non-union bargaining or bargaining through newly created enterprise based employee associations. Indeed, much of the Workplace Relations Act is given over to creating these new bargaining entities in this non-union bargaining stream. That was the government's expectation—that workers would be weakened in their capacity to industrially organise because they would move into such structures.We would have to say that that part of the vision—the creation of weakened enterprise unions, moving away from traditional union structures to some sort of weakened form or organisation—has been a spectacular failure. So the government now presides over a two-track industrial relations system: one in which workers outside the unionised sector of the work force who attempt to bargain without market power are basically left to the mercy of their employer, unprotected, and of course the other track where unionised workers who are collectively bargaining, in some circumstances, manage to strike very good bargains indeed and their industrial tactics are made lawful by the government's own legislation.We all know the fact that some unions have managed to collectively bargain effectively under this industrial relations system has been seen by the government as a complete affront and the government have responded by coming into this House with pieces of legislation like the pattern bargaining bill in an endeavour to force these unions to bargain with one hand tied behind their backs. Fortunately, commonsense prevailed and this parliament has not sanctioned these new attacks. Let us have a look once again at the rhetoric versus the reality. The rhetoric of this government was, `We're tough and we're going to bring unions under control,' whereas the reality is that they have just assaulted the weakest. In characterising the government's position in this way, I am not saying that the government have not engaged in actions which are fundamentally anti-union. We know that they have, with the waterfront dispute being perhaps the most spectacular single example. But I am also trying to point to the dishonesty which is at the centre of the government's industrial relations approach. They did not go out at the last election and say, `We will do all we can to hurt the industrially weak,' but that is what they have done. I note that when they get a message back from the industrially weak that they are not happy with current work force conditions—and one of those messages was delivered through the ACTU survey which gained some media coverage today and was dealt with by the minister during question time—rather than listen to the message they attack the messenger. We should note that there is considerable pain out there in the community, and we need really do no more than go to the ABS figures that are being used in the living wage case which deal with the 800,000 lowest paid working households. The figures show a startlingly bad picture, and I would have thought that the minister would be exhibiting some concern about statistics like this: 30,000 of those households went without meals, 30,000 could not afford heating, 41,000 sold or pawned things, 284,800 had no holiday, 115,000 had second-hand clothes and 22,000 had sought help from welfare or community groups. When you are presiding over an industrial relations system which gives you outcomes like that, I do not think you can really deny that the effect of the system has been to jeopardise the working conditions of the industrially weak.I now turn to the details of this bill. When you analyse this bill properly, it is a further assault on the working conditions of the industrially weak. This bill would prevent employees who work in a business that employs no more than 15 persons from having access to the unfair dismissal provisions of the Workplace Relations Act. There is no provision in this bill preventing employers incorporating companies and transferring the employment of employees to those companies in order to keep the number employed by any one company at 15 or less. Lest it be viewed as fanciful that anyone would go to the trouble of doing that, I point out that, in a former occupation—two occupations ago now—as a partner of a law firm that regularly worked on behalf of workers in the clothing trades industry, I had workers come to me who had been employed in the same factory at the same machine for more than 15 years and when you looked through their group certificates there was a different company listed as the employer in every group certificate. That had been deliberately done to try to avoid obligations like long service leave. When people will go to that kind of trouble to avoid the potential of having a long service leave claim, one wonders what kind of trouble they will go to to try to bring their numbers to 15 or less and make sure they are not caught by the unfair dismissal provisions. Anybody who is getting quality industrial relations advice would have had that risk raised with them, and the least they could have done was to try to deal with it in this bill. But that has not been done.This bill also introduces a requirement that an employee cannot access the unfair dismissal provisions of the legislation unless they have been engaged by their employer for a period of at least six months. Let us have a look at this bill. Who is it going to affect? Predominantly, people who work in small businesses are the non-unionised sector of the work force. Predominantly, people who work in small businesses are the industrially weak. They are the price takers, and they are the people who are going to be left without a remedy. However the government wants to dress this bill up, the reality is that this bill will enable small businesses to dismiss employees unfairly and allow employers to be able to dismiss new employees unfairly. This bill is about taking fairness out of the equation and giving small business employers in particular more power. I think this was revealingly put by the member for Curtin in her contribution to this debate when she said in relation to this bill:It is a reaction to the cold, hard fact that the cost of labour is an integral factor in the demand for labour, which is hardly, I would have thought, a disputable proposition. Things fall down, not up. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west—She might well have added that the sun rises on a Court government and sets on a Geoff Gallop one.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—The other way round.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—I thank the minister for the clarification, because the sun has well and truly set on the Court government and on the member for Curtin's aspirations to be Premier. She goes on: ... and price is a factor in determining demand. The price of labour is not merely the level of wages or other remuneration; the cost of labour to employers is the aggregation of all relevant costs—wages, remuneration, taxation, regulation and risk as well as the initial set-up costs associated with employment. By inflating the cost of labour, unfair dismissal laws drive down demand for employment among small businesses. The obvious consequence is unemployment.There we have it: the coalition philosophy of industrial relations laid bare. In breach of the historic tradition of fairness that has characterised the Australian industrial relations system, where the price of labour to an employer is also recognised as the wage of a worker used to support the worker and his or her family, we have the coalition philosophy of industrial relations where wages and on-costs are no more than a cost to business and workers can be left without protection to enable that cost of business to fall until hopefully the market for labour clears. With that kind of philosophy, there is no floor below which you will not go, and this bill is an example of that kind of philosophy in action.Let us deal with some of the spurious claims that have been made in the government's attempt to defend this bill in this debate. One of those spurious claims has been that this bill does not matter because employees have legal rights in relation to unlawful, as opposed to unfair, dismissals. Now that is true, but we know that unlawful dismissal is confined to a number of very specific grounds, including if you are dismissed for discriminatory reasons such as sexual preference, age, union membership, family responsibilities or if you are dismissed because you are engaged in protected—that is, lawful—industrial action. But outside that very limited class this bill sanctions unfair dismissals by small business or unfair dismissal of newly engaged employees. I will raise with you a real-life example I came across when I worked at Slater and Gordon, and I will be very interested in the minister's response to this when he rises in relation to this bill. I acted, when I was at Slater and Gordon, for a man who worked in a bus depot. It was a small bus depot and I have no doubt the employer would have employed fewer than 15 people. The employer had a large and, as it turned out, vicious dog that roamed around the bus depot—if the minister is doubting the veracity of this, I can have produced to him out of archives the file with the relevant identifying features deleted—and bit the worker. The worker went to the employer and complained about being bitten by the dog and asked if the employer would restrain the dog. The employer's response was to dismiss the worker rather than restrain the dog. That might sound humorous but there we have a worker with no job, a bleeding wound and, under this government's legislation—this very bill—no remedy. That worker was not dismissed for sexual preference or because he was engaged in lawful industrial action or any of those things. He was dismissed because he complained about being bitten by a dog. I do not know what the minister is going to tell us should be done in those circumstances; but, if the minister thinks this bill is fair legislation, he has to be arguing it would be a fair outcome for that worker to be left without a remedy. I would find it very interesting indeed to see if the minister is capable of making out that argument, media training and question time training included! Can we look at the horizontal inequity here. If the worker bitten by the dog worked down the road at a bigger bus depot where there were 20 employees, he would have a remedy. How can that be right? If the employer had marched out and said to him, `I think you are a homosexual; you're dismissed,' he would have had a remedy. But, bitten by a dog, he does not have a remedy. Let us have a look at the horizontal fairness. How can we say, looking at those circumstances, that all of them—the bitten worker in the bigger business, the person dismissed for sexual preference and this worker—should not have remedies? Of course, all of them should have remedies, yet this government, picking and choosing in a completely ridiculous way, is leaving a bundle of workers—what is likely to be the most industrially weak section of the work force—without a remedy. The second spurious claim that has been used to justify this bill is that it will create 50,000 more jobs in the small business sector. It is one of those things that, if you say it often enough—if the former minister for industrial relations says it, and then the Prime Minister says it, and then the former minister for industrial relations says it again, and then the new minister says it—you will somehow convince each other it is true. But you have to go back and say, `Where does this figure come from?' It might have been exchanged around the Liberal Party room so many times that they all believe it to be true. But where does it actually come from? It comes from an assertion made by the Small Business Council, and no evidence was ever produced to ground that assertion. When you look at the evidence that exists on this issue—and of course the best evidence, we think, comes from the Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey 1995—there is no way in which a claim of 50,000 new jobs can be sustained. In fact, when you analyse that survey, as our Labor senators in another place remarked when they issued their minority report dealing with this bill, you find that only 0.9 per cent of respondents nominated that they had not recruited employees due to unfair dismissal legislation. So there is spurious claim No. 2 absolutely gone.Spurious claim No. 3 is that you need a period of time to assess whether a new employee is going to fit into a job and that consequently you need this legislation. That is undoubtedly right: you do need a period of time to assess a new employee; but provision is currently made for that by the proper use of probation periods. That is the way that it has always been done on hiring. There is nothing wrong with that mechanism. Any employer with a sensible industrial relations strategy or human resources strategy does that—they review, counsel and look at new people as they are bedding into a job—and really no argument has been advanced to suggest that the bill is justified in that sense. Once again, this claim is without foundation.If it is going to create the kind of unfairness we know it is going to create; if it is going to impose that unfairness on the industrially weak, by and large; if there is no foundation for the job claims that are made in relation to this bill and no foundation for the claims made that it is necessary to deal with new employees, what are we all doing here? I think we know what we are all doing here: we are continuing down a relatively mindless and repetitious industrial relations agenda that was set by the former minister. The new minister has an opportunity—perhaps a historic opportunity—to break with that agenda. I think if he looks at this legislation—I will be very interested in his response on the worker and the dog—on its merits, as opposed to what they have all convinced themselves about while sitting around the Liberal Party party room, he will see this bill is absolutely unjustified and should be rejected again. 16:51:0025105Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—This Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 [No. 2] is the first bill that I have had the chance to deal with in the House in my current capacity. Let me take this opportunity to say that I am determined to be a minister for employees and not just employers. I am proud of the fact that under this government the wages of ordinary workers have significantly increased. In fact, basic award earnings under this government have gone up by nine per cent in real terms. Under the former government they actually fell by five per cent. I am not against unions, but I am against union privilege. I spent enough time as a student and as a younger man amongst the disciples of the late, great B. A. Santamaria to have a proper appreciation of the historical role that unions have played in civilising capitalism and in trying to establish the dignity of work. Unfortunately, under the system as it has developed in this country, unions are given a position of legal privilege which is not justified by any of the real evils that they might possibly counteract. The fundamental approach that I bring, and that the government brings, to this whole question of workplace relations is that the players in this drama are essentially decent people who can be trusted most of the time to do the right thing. We do not believe that the average Australian worker and the average Australian manager these days are people who need their hands constantly held by unions, commissions, employer organisations or courts. We believe that they are capable of managing their affairs by themselves in their workplace.Much of the debate over this legislation has been very general. From members opposite we have had a lot of general attacks on the government. Let me focus for a moment on the bill. This bill essentially does two things: first of all, it exempts new employees of small businesses from the unfair dismissal laws and, secondly, it provides for all new employees of any business to have a six-month probationary period during which the unfair dismissal laws do not operate. As members opposite have pointed out, this is by no means the first time this bill has come before the parliament. Bills of this type came before the last parliament twice. This bill has come before the parliament once before. This is the second time that the bill has been debated in this House in this term of parliament. The government's determination, again and again, to see this bill come in is a sign of its seriousness about trying to protect small business and business generally. The opposition's determination to reject it is a sign of its concern to protect rights as it sees them, no matter how much damage those rights might do.It seems to me that small business, in particular, is nothing like the ideological battleground that so many members opposite seem to think it is. Small business is much more like a family than an ideological battleground. It is not appropriate to inject into small business situations the kind of legalism which may be appropriate under some circumstances in different contexts. As a result of the operation of the unfair dismissal laws introduced by the former government and modified in part by this government, an employer who wants to dismiss an employee generally has to provide two warning letters. There has been a bureaucratisation, if you like, a legalisation of this process in ways which are not appropriate for small business in particular—sending warning letters to the staff of small businesses is a little like sending a lawyer's letter to your spouse. It certainly signals a very serious downturn in any relationship—the sort of downturn from which it is very difficult to recover. Unfortunately, under the unfair dismissal laws as they have developed in this country, small businesses are now accustomed to have to pay what they crudely describe as `piss off money' if they want to dismiss people. They are accustomed to pay not only this money but also large legal fees to get rid of people. It has become a large and significant impost on small business, and it is an impost that the government does not believe they should face. The member for Lalor raised an example from her own previous life. I take her example seriously. Obviously, I think it is most unfortunate that a worker in the situation she described should have been dismissed. I do not say that all employers are perfect, just as I am sure that she would not say that all employees are perfect. I do not say that doing what this government would like done is going to produce a perfect world. I do not suggest that, if this bill were passed, there would never be any injustice or wrong in the world. I do not suggest that for a second. What I do say, though, is that the unfair dismissal laws as they stand are worse than the problem they have been designed to fix. I believe that the unfair dismissal legislation is a cure that is worse than the disease. The truth is that, if small business cannot fire people, it feels that it cannot hire people, and it is the government's position that, if we freed small business from the restrictions of the law as it currently stands, the extra employment that this would generate would far outweigh any occasional instances where employees feel they have been hard done by. It has been said by members opposite that the government should not single out small business for particular exemption from these laws. I should point out to the House that, in Germany, unfair dismissal laws do not apply to firms employing fewer than five employees. In Italy, more informal unfair dismissal provisions apply in the case of companies employing fewer than 15 staff. There are other legislative precedents for treating small business differently. In 1982, for instance, the New South Wales Labor government introduced an employment protection act which had an exclusion for employers with fewer than 15 employees. In 1986 the former Hawke Labor government introduced an affirmative action bill which excluded from its operation employers with fewer than 100 employees. In his second reading speech, the then Prime Minister acknowledged that small business did not have the capacity to undertake the sort of legalistic processes that large businesses manage all the time.It has been said by members opposite that in fact it is not a big issue, that small business is not really concerned about the unfair dismissal laws as they stand. The Morgan and Banks 1996 survey indicated that 16 per cent of small businesses have been adversely affected in their hiring intentions by federal unfair dismissal laws.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—What did they have to say about the GST? What did they have to say about that?EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—We will come to that. In April 1997 there was a Recruitment Solutions survey which 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 New South Wales Chamber of Commerce survey which reported that 56 per cent of businesses said the prospect of unfair dismissal claims had discouraged them from recruiting staff. A report by the National Institute of Labour Studies in May 1997 found that unfair dismissal laws strongly influenced hiring decisions. The Yellow Pages small business survey in 1997, covering 1,200 randomly selected proprietors of small businesses, showed that 79 per cent of those proprietors thought small business would be better off if exempted from these laws. Thirty-three per cent of those same small business proprietors reported that they would have been more likely to recruit new employees if exempted from 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. In July 1998 the South Australian 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. Seventy-seven per cent of respondents with fewer than 15 employees indicated that they would hire more if exempted from unfair dismissal laws. The member for Brisbane asked about GST. It is interesting that the same small business survey which has been recently used by the Victorian government to attack the federal government over GST and other issues—the Sweeney survey—said that 39 per cent of small businesses say that unfair dismissal laws affect their business.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisHow many in the same survey say it was the GST? It was the last in 11 options.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—We are debating unfair dismissal at the moment. You cannot be selective about these things.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—You can't, so tell me.10000Causley, Ian (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—The member for Brisbane should not get too excited.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—Let me say that 39 per cent of small businesses, even on the Victorian Labor government's own survey, said that unfair dismissal laws affect their businesses. Of course, we have solved that problem with the changes to the business activity statement. Even Bob Carr, in 1996, said publicly that the unfair dismissal laws were damaging employment and causing small business not to employ as many people as it otherwise would. I will move briefly to the second element of this bill; that is, the six-month probationary period for all new employees. There is nothing unusual, nothing draconian, nothing out of the ordinary, about what is proposed. In the UK, for instance, one year's continuous service is normally required before you can make an unfair dismissal claim. In Canada, employees in the federal jurisdiction must have been continuously employed for at least one year before accessing an unjust dismissal remedy. In Germany, an employee must have been employed for at least six months before they can gain access to an unfair dismissal remedy. So what we are proposing is in fact less rigorous than the situation which obtains in Blair's Labour Britain, so there is nothing harsh, nothing draconian, nothing out of the ordinary, in this particular bill.We have had members opposite, in various debates over the last few weeks, constantly talking about the need to create better conditions for small business. We have had members opposite crying crocodile tears over high petrol prices and the paperwork involved in the business activity statement. If members opposite were serious about helping small business, they would talk to the government about this issue. They would be prepared to sit down and talk to us about the kind of protection that small business needs from frivolous and vexatious unfair dismissal claims. They would be prepared to talk to us about establishing a more reasonable probationary period for new employees. They are not. Unfortunately, all that members opposite have done, at least in the course of this debate, has been to make general attacks on government policy, to attack this government as being somehow against workers. We are not. We are determined to do the right thing by workers, because workers in Australia are our constituents as well as the constituents of members opposite. We want to do the right thing by them, and we believe that we have given the workers of this country a good deal.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Bevis's amendment) stand part of the question.17:10:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. I.R. Causley) 74Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andren, P.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.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.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.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.60Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.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.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.Fahey, J.J.O'Byrne, M.A.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 25109Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott) read a third time.Bills25109R123825109Debate resumed from 28 February, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.17:16:0025109Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—The Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (New Zealand Citizens) Bill 2001 before us today follows on from discussions of late between the Australian and New Zealand governments focusing on reciprocal social security arrangements between our two countries. This has been an issue that has been subject to ongoing discussions for many years under governments past and present. The broad agreement that has been struck reorientates the onus for providing social security entitlements to New Zealand citizens in Australia. At first glance the proposal seems fair and achieves the stated aims of both countries. In particular, the opposition wishes to acknowledge the efforts of the New Zealand Labor Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who has on the face of it made the greatest compromise in relation to the new agreement. It is a compromise that the former conservative government in New Zealand was unable to make. The opposition commends the tough stand taken by the New Zealand Prime Minister. It was Helen Clark's determination to stop the population drain that more than anything has meant there is finally a resolution to this matter.Before getting into the detail of this legislation, I believe it is appropriate to acknowledge the contribution made by migrants from New Zealand to the fabric of Australian communities over the years. Despite our great sporting rivalries and good-natured digs at each other on occasion, Australia and New Zealand share a great deal in common not just because of our proximity to each other but also because of the partnerships we have had during adversity, most notably doing the two world wars. It is because of this that the opposition believes that we have to be careful to ensure that the management of this new agreement is handled with sensitivity so as not to create any ill feeling with our neighbours. The opposition also believes that it is appropriate to monitor the new agreement to ensure people are treated fairly.Moving on to the specifics of the bill, it changes the definition of `Australian resident' for the purposes of social security law, so that access to social security payments for New Zealand citizens taking up residence in Australia is restricted unless they either meet normal migration selection criteria or are covered by a social security international agreement. The new agreement that is coming into force expands upon the two-year waiting period that was introduced last year. There will now be a requirement that all new New Zealanders arriving in Australia will have to successfully apply for residency before the two-year waiting period will take effect and social security payments can then eventually be paid. This brings New Zealand migrants into line with migrants from other countries.However, the bill makes sure that the changes will not operate to restrict access to child related payments under the social security or family assistance laws—for example, family tax benefits or concession cards and related concessional pharmaceutical benefits. Also, New Zealanders who are already in Australia accessing social security benefits will not be affected. Specifically, the changes made by the bill will not apply to New Zealand citizens who are in Australia on 26 February 2001 or New Zealand citizens who have been in Australia for a period, or periods, of 12 months in the previous two years immediately before 26 February 2001. Added to this there is a general three-month period of grace from the announcement of the changes on 26 February 2001; a six-month period of grace will apply to those New Zealand citizens resident in Australia but temporarily absent who are in receipt of a portable social security payment—for example, the age pension; and a longer 12-month period of grace will apply to those New Zealand citizens resident in Australia but temporarily absent who are unable to return to Australia in the three-month period.While the opposition has not had a great deal of time to scrutinise every element of this new agreement, we are at this stage satisfied the new agreement will operate fairly and in accordance with community expectations. Although, I must say, given the way that this was put into the House only last Thursday and it is now being debated today, I do not think that that is an entirely satisfactory way to consult the opposition to ensure agreement. The opposition notes that there has been some speculation of significant savings being generated from the new agreement resulting from longer waiting periods and, presumably, fewer New Zealanders making the decision to come to Australia. Figures that have been mentioned are in the vicinity of $100 million per year. Ordinarily these savings would be channelled into consolidated revenue. On this occasion the opposition believes that these savings could well be earmarked for assisting unemployed Australians back into work—to build and to invest in some of those capacity building programs that the McClure report talked about. So we call on the government to seriously consider this, particularly given what we heard in question time yesterday when the Treasurer, Mr Costello, walked away from Minister Newman's very public assurances that the Howard government would restore up to $1 billion of the $5 billion that the Howard government has taken out of welfare since coming to office. When questioned about the government's commitment to welfare reform, Mr Costello warned: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 ... As I recall, the government has never put a sum, any sum at all, on the amount of the reforms in relation to welfare.I think this contrasts starkly with Senator Newman's promise of 14 December last year that welfare reform would be the highest priority in this year's federal budget, and unambiguous leaks since before December last year— SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt my colleague, Mr Deputy Speaker, but this bill is a narrowly cast bill. It is a family and community service legislation amendment bill relating to New Zealand citizens, and that is the extent of it. It relates to New Zealand citizens living in Australia and Australian citizens living in New Zealand. It has nothing to do with Mr Costello, Jocelyn Newman or anybody else.10000Causley, Ian (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—I uphold the point of order. It is a very narrowly cast bill. The member for Lilley should stick strictly to the terms of the bill.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Mr Deputy Speaker, this bill forecasts savings to the Family and Community Services budget. We are currently having a discussion nationally about the need to invest in welfare reform. What I have just said is that the government should seriously consider the very considerable projected savings flowing from this bill, which the government itself has talked about and which the Prime Minister, when he was in New Zealand, talked about. The government should consider reinvesting these savings in capacity building programs that come within the ambit of the Department of Family and Community Services. This is not a bill which is being put forward by the minister for immigration. It is being put forward by the Minister for Family and Community Services. It is integral to the expenditure of that department. With due respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not think that I am moving outside the confines of this bill, when the government has publicly talked about savings. I am simply asking: how much are they; where are they going; have they been put into the forward estimates; is the government going to put them back into consolidated revenue; what is happening to them?I think it is entirely legitimate to raise these savings in the context of the McClure report and in the context of the answer given in this House yesterday by the Treasurer when he was asked by the Leader of the Opposition whether welfare reform was still the highest priority of the government, whether it still intended to invest these savings. The Sydney Morning Herald reported last year that the cabinet submission estimated the cost at about $800 million net over several years and $1 billion gross. The Minister for Family and Community Services at the time was running around the country beating her drum prior to her resignation from the ministry saying that she had it on the highest authority, from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, that welfare reform was going to be the top priority in this year's budget. Here we have a bill in which the government says there are considerable savings and I am drawing the linkage within the context of the budget of that department, in the context of this bill, to the government's stated agenda and so-called commitment to welfare reform as embodied in the McClure report. Indeed, I think the Prime Minister has drawn that linkage himself. On the 7.30 Report on 14 December last year he said:We will be making additional money available in next year's Budget. We're not going to cherry-pick.I am asking what is happening to the additional moneys that are coming from this bill within the Department of Family and Community Services, which has a $50 billion budget a year. The government has been claiming that welfare reform is its top priority and that it is going to invest up to $1 billion in that reform because it recognised some validity in the approach that was outlined in the McClure report. The McClure report is integral to all of the operations of the Department of Family and Community Services. It is a statement that Labor has also largely endorsed because it points in the direction to which, we believe, welfare reform must always point—that is, helping people to move from welfare to work. It goes to the very heart of this bill. This bill is at the very heart of that whole debate.The government has said that it will make an investment. It has finally acknowledged that its short-sighted cuts, and indeed cuts which have cost us a lot more in the long-term, were wrong. It has talked about the need for an injection of funds and about some of the measures in the McClure report as being positive. The McClure report has pointed to many of the things that we have suggested which are positive, such as recognition of tax credits, work bonuses, participation supplements and better case management. These are all ideas that can make a difference, that can help people move from welfare to work. The ideas in the McClure report are good but they require cash. They require money, they require government support, they require backup. What disturbed me was the answer by the Treasurer in this House yesterday. It seemed to me that he was torpedoing the commitment that the former Minister for Family and Community Services thought she had from both the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. The McClure report will be absolutely meaningless unless the Department of Family and Community Services backs its recommendations with some substantial investments in the future. My concern with that report also was its loose use of the expression `mutual obligation', which left the door wide open for the government to target some of our community's most vulnerable. We all know that the government has been determined to force changes on single parents and disability support pensioners. Given that we expect the government to breach up to one and two job seekers over the coming year, and we have had the Minister for Community Services talking about that today, no-one can expect that it will implement the report with the good heart that is needed to make it genuinely work.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—I rise on a point of order and it goes to drawing the member back to the bill. I have been patient, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member has talked about savings, but he is now talking about nothing else but the McClure report. If he wants to deal with the McClure report he ought to move an amendment that takes account of the McClure report and its relationship to this bill. This bill stands as it is. There is no mention of the McClure report in the explanatory memorandum or anything else connected with the bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I uphold the point of order. There is nothing in the bill that talks about the McClure report. The member for Lilley has to stick strictly to the bill before the House.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Yes, but this bill is an essential part of the government's—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There will be no debate. The member should know the standing orders.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—I was not disagreeing with you. This bill is an integral part of the whole approach the government is taking to social policy. We hear the government use the term `social coalition' so frequently. This bill is obviously part of the centrepiece—probably the centrepiece—of the government's social coalition. As the centrepiece of cost cutting, I am raising the relationship of this bill to the rest of the government's program. Last year Senator Newman, prior to her resignation from the ministry, said she was unable to guarantee that there would be no loss of benefits to anyone affected by the proposed changes to welfare reform of which this bill is an integral part.In recent months, this government have had no problem putting out money for roads and Defence. I want to know whether they are going to take the savings from this bill and actually invest them in the capacity building programs that the former Minister for Family and Community Services talked about. It is unknown to me whether her agenda has become the agenda of the new Minister for Family and Community Services. It is almost impossible to tell in this House whether the Minister for Community Services has an agenda at all. But I would hope that there is some commitment to a positive agenda of reform on the part of the new minister, Senator Vanstone, and that she will take the opportunity to live up to the commitments made by the former minister that there was going to be an absolutely essential investment of significant money in capacity building programs and in changes to reward work over welfare. That is why we, as an opposition, are supporting this bill. We have a positive agenda for reform. We recognise that it must be funded. We doubt that this government is genuine in its previous public commitments to funding that agenda. But we believe that, when we come to government, that will be an agenda that we will take on wholeheartedly because we are prepared to invest in capacity building programs, and we are prepared to reward work over welfare. 17:31:0025113Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—The Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (New Zealand Citizens) Bill 2001 has come to the House, to my knowledge, after 20 years or more of discussion between the Australian and New Zealand governments about the relationship between the citizens of each country; for instance, what are the rights of Australians in New Zealand and what recognition should New Zealanders be given in Australia? There is a closeness in our history: the fact that, even when we were separate colonies of the British Empire, there was a close relationship, stretching right back to 1828 until 1840, during which time New Zealand was under the jurisdiction of the Governor of New South Wales; and, of course, New Zealand is mentioned in the Australian Constitution.It is not surprising that we have such a close link and that there has been such a ready and easy movement of people between the two countries. However, in the latter years there has been not strain so much but differences as the Australian economy has expanded and our population has blossomed and increased. There is new life and variety in Australian life and, of course, that is reflected in both the lifestyle and wellbeing of Australians compared with New Zealanders. The variety of opportunities in Australia has expanded, and that has tended to attract Kiwis from across the Tasman to want to live in Australia and to become permanent residents of our nation. It is very interesting to look at the composition of the New Zealand community living in Australia. The most recent figures that I am aware of are the 1996 census figures which record almost 300,000 New Zealand born persons in Australia. It appears that the increase is roughly 1½ per cent per annum. The distribution of those people by state and territory shows that Queensland has the largest number of New Zealanders, followed by New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. The average age of New Zealand born people in Australia in 1996 was 35 years compared with 44 years for all overseas born people. Something that every Australian has observed is that New Zealanders coming to Australia tend to be young, active and looking for opportunity. The age distribution of New Zealanders in the census showed that 10.3 per cent were nought to 14 years of age and 46 per cent were 25 to 44 years of age. Another interesting feature was the qualifications of New Zealanders. Despite the fact that they were younger than the average migrant coming to Australia, they were very similar in skill level to people living in Australia: 42.4 per cent held some form of educational-occupational qualification compared with 42.3 per cent of Australians. Among the New Zealand born, 16 per cent had higher level qualifications and 16.1 per cent had skilled vocational training. Of those with no qualifications, 11 per cent were still attending educational institutions. This is very interesting because there appears to be, in those people who have come to Australia from New Zealand, quite a spread of skills and disciplines. The figures on earning capacity show that at the top end of the skills and qualifications range, there is a significant number of New Zealanders earning well above the average income of native born Australians. At the other end, however, there is a significant number of New Zealanders who have struggled on arriving in Australia and who have found it necessary to go on welfare.It has been said by some that the welfare benefits in Australia are more attractive than in New Zealand and that that is a good reason for New Zealanders to move to Australia. Whether there is truth in that, I am not aware, but that has been said and it appears that there are among those New Zealand citizens living in Australia a significant number with low skill levels. In this day and age, as Australia has changed and moved into a more technologically astute and technologically dependent economy, people who lack skills have great difficulty in finding employment. What the government has been able to do is successfully negotiate with the New Zealand government on the way in which our relationship, the movement of people and their access to benefits should be dealt with. The new social security arrangements between Australia and New Zealand were announced by the Prime Minister. That was after a very successful visit by John Howard to New Zealand on 26 February 2001. Those negotiations, to my knowledge, had been going on for 20 years. The situation had been remarked upon for over 20 years as a matter of some concern between the two governments. Helen Clark and John Howard were the ones that brought together a suitable arrangement. The agreement will be similar in character to the reciprocal agreements that we have with other countries in similar circumstances—with Italy and the UK, and we are trying to develop one with Greece. Countries from which many people have come to Australia are usually covered by some form of reciprocal agreement which covers things such as the age pension, assistance to people who are severely disabled and carers. Under this arrangement, each country will contribute the cost of payments according to the period of working life spent in the country. That is similar to all the other reciprocal agreements. The payments do not start until a period, as I remember it, of 10 years spent in work in Australia.From 26 February this year, New Zealanders moving to Australia to live will need to meet normal migration selection—that is something we have not applied before—before they can access certain social security benefits and obtain Australian citizenship. The freedoms which Australians and New Zealanders enjoy under the trans-Tasman travel arrangement to work in each other's country remain unchanged and unaffected by the process, and New Zealanders will still be able to travel to Australia without a visa. New Zealanders can live, study or work here indefinitely. The really substantial change reflected in the bill before the House today is to the definition of `Australian resident'. Under the social security law, the definition of `Australian resident'—this is not a change to the immigration law; it is a change to the social security law—will restrict access to the full range of social security payments to New Zealand citizens unless they are holders of permanent visas. That is the change. They will not be able to access welfare unless they are the holders of permanent visas. Those who come here in the future will not be able to obtain a permanent visa. If they are not able to obtain a permanent visa, they will not have access to Newstart and similar payments. They will continue to access family payments and some of the concession cards. They will also continue to be able to access Medicare, emergency housing, higher education and some employment services. Those who are currently living in Australia or who are in the process of moving to Australia permanently will not be affected by the changes that were negotiated by the two prime ministers. New Zealanders who do not obtain a permanent visa but who have been living and working in Australia for at least 10 years will be given short-term income support for up to six months if they run into difficulties. That also reflects reciprocal agreements between Australia and other nations. The current agreement will remain in place until 30 June 2002, when the new agreement takes effect. I trust that the Minister for Community Services and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs will be very vigilant to make sure that there is not a great inward rush of New Zealanders as they come here to take advantage of this window of opportunity. I do not wish to delay the House. I think this is an enlightened approach. It has been needed for about 10 years. It has been impossible to sensibly manage the relationship between Australia and New Zealand with the access to welfare. That has been a magnet for New Zealanders wanting to come to Australia. It has not been used correctly in some instances. This approach is very fair both for Australians living in New Zealand and for New Zealanders coming to Australia. New Zealanders will be able to come, they will be able to work, they will be able to holiday, but they will not be able to access Newstart unless they hold a permanent residency visa. That definition is taken care of by the Social Security Act and these changes before the House rather than through the Immigration Act, which would be the natural way to consider it. This is a much more successful way of dealing with it. I want to compliment the two prime ministers and the governments of both countries for being able to forge such a change without damaging the relationship between the two nations. 17:42:0025115Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—in reply—I thank members on both sides of the House for their contributions to the debate on the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (New Zealand Citizens) Bill 2001. In particular, I would like to thank the member for Mitchell for his contribution, which was very lucid. It is pleasing to see that both sides of this place agree on this very important issue. It is, of course, unfortunate that the member for Lilley found it necessary to stray from the bill, making it necessary for the deputy speaker to make sure that he stuck to the bill. It is overwhelmingly obvious that most Australians recognise the very special and close links that Australia has had with New Zealand. We share a common history, typified through our great Anzac tradition dating back to the landing at Gallipoli and going right up to recent times, when we had the joint participation of forces deployed to East Timor. It is fair to say that we have more in common with New Zealanders than with any other nation in the world, particularly on the sporting field. The relationship that we have built over years has been based on common needs, common values and common interests. It is clear that Australia and New Zealand have both benefited greatly over the years from the free flow of people across the Tasman to live, to work and to travel. I must emphasise that this will not change with the passage of this bill. This bill gives effect to the changes announced by the Prime Minister of Australia, the Hon. John Howard MP, and the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Rt. Hon. Helen Clark MP, on 26 February 2001. The new arrangements mark the successful conclusion of the social security negotiations between Australia and New Zealand that date back to 1999. The new arrangements will be similar to our arrangements with other countries. It will cover unemployment assistance, age pensions, assistance to people who are severely disabled and carers. Under the agreement, each country will contribute to the costs of the payments according to the period of working life spent in each country. These arrangements represent a substantial step forward in our social security relations with New Zealand. They are mutually beneficial and affordable. They also provide a fair approach to the cost of supporting people in need while preserving the common labour market and free movement of people currently available through the trans-Tasman travel arrangement. It will place citizens taking up residence in Australia on the same basis as other migrants by restricting access to social security payments unless the person meets normal migration selection criteria or the payment is covered by a social security international agreement. The bill achieves this by amending the definition of the Australian resident for the purpose of the social security law. The amendment will restrict New Zealand citizens' access to the full range of social security payments unless they are holders of a permanent visa. The changes will not apply to New Zealand citizens who were resident in Australia on 26 February 2001, or who are temporarily absent from Australia and who have been in Australia for a period—or periods—of 12 months in the previous two years immediately before 26 February 2001. For those New Zealand citizens who are intending to reside in Australia, a three-month period of grace will apply from 26 February 2001. A six-month period of grace will apply to those New Zealand citizens temporarily absent from Australia on 26 February 2001 and who are in receipt of a social security payment under the portability arrangements that apply under the social security law. A longer 12-month period of grace will apply to those New Zealand citizens, resident in Australia but temporarily absent, who are unable to return to Australia in the three-month period and are not in receipt of social security payments. This bill will introduce amendments to the definition of the Australian resident so that only a holder of a special category visa—a protected SCV holder—will be considered an Australian resident for the purpose of the social security law. Amendments will also allow payment of Newstart allowance, youth allowance and sickness allowance for a one-off period of up to six months to New Zealand citizens who are not protected SCV holders but who reside in Australia for a continuous period of at least 10 years from February 2001. The proposed amendments will achieve the required restriction to access to social security payments for New Zealand citizens who reside in Australia but who do not become permanent residents or Australian citizens. The amendments also ensure that changes do not apply to child related social security payments and access to concession cards for all suitably qualified New Zealand citizens.I note that New Zealanders will still be able to travel to Australia without a visa—they can live, study or work here indefinitely. The most substantial change reflected in this bill is to the definition of an Australian resident in the social security law to restrict access to the full range of social security payments to New Zealand citizens unless they are holders of a permanent visa. New Zealand citizens who come here in the future and do not obtain a permanent visa will not have access to Newstart allowance and similar payments. They will continue to have access to family payments and some concession cards. Also, they will continue to be able to access Medicare, emergency housing, higher education and some employment services.New Zealanders who currently live in Australia or who are in the process of moving to Australia permanently will not be affected by these changes. These people will automatically retain current rights and privileges as if they are permanent residents of Australia. We recognise that these people have already made Australia their home and we want to ensure that they are not unfairly disadvantaged by the new arrangements. I know the member for Mitchell is very keen on that. In addition, New Zealanders who do not obtain a permanent visa but who have been living and working in Australia for at least 10 years will be given a short-term income support of up to six months if they run into difficulties.The current arrangements will remain in place until 30 June 2002 when the new agreement takes effect. These arrangements represent a substantial step forward in our social security relations with New Zealand. It goes without saying that the new social security arrangements between Australia and New Zealand will provide a more stable, durable and affordable underpinning for the free trans-Tasman flow of people. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time. 25116Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Anthony) read a third time.Bills25116R124125116Debate resumed from 1 March, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.17:51:0025117Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I move as an amendment to the motion for the second reading: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:(1) condemns the Government for its incompetent administration of the aircraft noise levy, in failing to declare Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport a `leviable' airport for the period from 1 July 1996 to 21 February 2001;(2) condemns the Government for collecting in excess of $150m from aircraft operators without due legal authority as a result; and(3) condemns the Government for giving priority to the GST at the expense of other important taxation matters”.This is a bill which proposes to retrospectively correct a very serious administrative omission which has rendered the aircraft noise levy inoperative from 1 July 1996 to 21 February 2001. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned. Questions Without Notice251172511717:52:0025117Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—During question time, the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation. I took it on notice, and I undertook to get back to the House as soon as I could. I have investigated the matter and can inform the House as follows. There were allegations of a conflict between the minister's portfolio responsibilities in relation to interactive gambling and his private interests in relation to poker machines. I think that the following points are relevantly made in refuting the claims of a conflict of interest. The minister declared to me and to the parliament that he was a beneficiary of a family trust with interests in hotel-motel operations. There was no specific mention of poker machines, but one could not reasonably expect that the operations of the hotels would be provided in fine detail. There was no reference to linen or china either. The minister's portfolio responsibilities have not encompassed interactive gambling issues. Senator Alston's response to his charter letter in November 1998 detailed Mr McGauran's responsibilities. Those responsibilities did not touch upon any online matters.The minister was, however, Acting Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts from 7 December to 17 December—a period encompassing debate and passage of the bill, but of course the debate and passage of the bill reflected previously determined government policy. The minister—and this is very relevant to the allegations made—was not present at cabinet on the three occasions that interactive gambling was discussed—namely, 3 April, 8 May and 26 June. As is well known, the minister represents Senator Alston in the House of Representatives, and in that capacity he carried the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000 in the chamber. On 7 December, there were three divisions during consideration of the bill. He voted in each of those divisions. House of Representatives standing order 196 states:No member shall be entitled to vote in any division upon a question (not being a matter of public policy) in which he or she has a direct pecuniary interest not held in common with the rest of the subjects of the Crown. The practice, however, defines public policy as government policy, not identifying any particular person individually and immediately. It could not reasonably be taken, therefore, to have been relevant to the minister's situation. Mention was also made in the parliament today of the minister's interest in the National Australia Bank. It was declared to me and the House that a company in which he held an interest had purchased shares in the NAB. The secretary of the department asked that Mr McGauran ensure that there was no direct influence on these shares. His portfolio responsibilities do not create a conflict with the NAB holding.I have obtained a letter from the Clerk of the House detailing the compliance with the requirements of the declaration of interests by members. The Clerk confirms that the requirements of the House are summarised in the guidelines authorised by the Committee of Members' Interests: ... require under category 2 the declaration in respect of family and business trusts to nominee companies of the names of trusts, the nature of their operations and their beneficial interests or beneficiaries. The requirement for the declaration of the nature of operations has not been interpreted as requiring the declaration of the details of activities undertaken by the particular business.That means that the minister has complied in full with the requirements of the declaration of a pecuniary interest. I might also add that the Clerk's letter confirms that between 1984 and 1988 the House required members to declare interests orally before speaking in debates and before voting in a division. These requirements were abolished following a report from the Committee of Members' Interests which expressed doubt that the requirement served any useful purpose. I understand that a similar action was not taken in another place. It seems, therefore, on the examination that I have made and on the advice that I have received, that there is no breach of the obligations by the minister at all. The minister declared his interests, the minister has been forthright and the minister did not participate in the cabinet discussion. In piloting the legislation through the House, the minister was merely publicly advocating government policy which, as a member of the government, he was bound to do. I absolutely reject any suggestion that he has behaved improperly. I table a letter from the Clerk addressed to me, dated 6 March. I also table advice that I have received from Barbara Belcher, First Assistant Secretary, Government Division, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.17:57:0025118Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I wonder if I could have your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Yes.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for your indulgence on this matter—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I simply ask for your guidance as to the basis on which—Opposition members interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—You don't mind me asking, do you? I am simply asking the Deputy Speaker a question.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—My advice is that the honourable member for Brand, the Leader of the Opposition, asked for indulgence, and I have granted indulgence.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Thank you very much for that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course, the Prime Minister's answer on this ought not to complete, for any body like ours, a full accounting on the question of the potential of a conflict of interest. That potential is substantial. The point about conflict of interest is not whether or not you own a particular company and then have to give a description of whether it has linen or cutlery or whatever; it is whether the operations of the companies put you in a situation where you may, as a minister, find yourself in a conflict of interest. If you are handling a gambling interest and you happen to own poker machines, you have the potential for a conflict of interest. So that particular sleight of hand—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: indulgence is poorly used in this place. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to move a substantive motion, that is fine, but to use indulgence to—4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—So you're going to tell the Speaker what to do now, are you?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—So the acting minister for gambling—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Deputy Speaker, it is my understanding of the granting of indulgence in this place that it is not normally done to allow contentious debate but rather used for matters of courtesy and matters where there are no substantive differences of opinion. The opposition leader is perfectly entitled to speak at whatever time he chooses, but I think it is not appropriate that the indulgence device be used. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—As the Prime Minister would appreciate, what I thought would happen is that the Prime Minister would explain and then the Leader of the Opposition would ask for indulgence. After that, I thought we could conclude the discussion. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will soon conclude.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I will be as brief as I possibly can, Mr Deputy Speaker, bearing in mind the concerns you have expressed. The question of a potential conflict of interest arising from the operations of a company does not go just to whether or not cabinet has considered it. Did the Prime Minister cover whether or not any submissions had been made to the minister in the period when he was the acting minister associated with those concerns? Did he cover any submissions made or any arguments put to him by those who had concerns one way or another with the decision? Has he been approached in any way, shape or form in his private capacity on these matters? Has he seen any documentation arising out of the department? Was he dropped a copy of the cabinet submission or any other materials associated with it? These are all relevant questions which go to the matter of whether or not a conflict of interest has occurred.The Prime Minister seems at least alive to the possibility that a conflict of interest could arise, given the character of the honourable gentleman and the minister's interests in this matter—those poker machines. It seems to me that the Prime Minister has inspected the detail of that activity. The mystification on his face as I started to ask a few of these basic questions is a pretty fair indication that the Prime Minister has done a pretty paltry job of coming to a conclusion as to whether or not his ministerial code of conduct has been breached. Given the Prime Minister's record on the administration of his code of conduct, I guess we ought not be surprised. There will be further opportunities to pursue this.Bills25119R124125119Debate resumed.18:02:0025119Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The aircraft noise levy collects revenue to fund a significant home and public building insulation program around airports with noise above a prescribed level. As at 31 January 2001, the levy has collected $197 million against the $347 million expended on insulating 3,300 homes and 80 public buildings. It has been estimated that the levy will need to continue for another five years to fully finance the insulation program. The Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Amendment Bill 2001 proposes to deem that the appropriate ministerial declaration was made for the period from 1 July 1996 until 21 February 2001. From that date, a new prospective declaration was gazetted by the Assistant Treasurer. The reason for retrospectivity going back the best part of five years is that there has been massive incompetence on the part of this government. It is blaming the bureaucracy for this error. Notwithstanding the fact that the bill is retrospective, Labor need to support this bill because it confirms what we believed to be properly collected revenue. If this measure were not passed, that would necessitate the return of the levy to the airlines which collect it, despite the fact that the real economic incidence of the levy was on passengers. That would result in an undue and inappropriate windfall gain for the airlines, as well as a significant cost to the Commonwealth and taxpayers generally.In that regard, it is a legitimate retrospective piece of legislation but one which has been imposed on this House and is necessary because the government failed to do the administratively appropriate thing, and that is make a ministerial declaration from 1 July 1996 when the aircraft noise levy was originally supposed to begin. Regrettably, this government has been—and I have made this point a number of times—so focused on the goods and services tax over the past few years that they have let a whole raft of important taxation issues—just as with this one—slip away. Their administration of the taxation arrangements in general has been far from satisfactory. I have spoken previously in this parliament about the government's failure to properly police fuel substitution and their failure to protect taxpayers and, indeed, motorists against the resultant excise evasion scams. I have talked about the Taxation Office's inadequate pursuit of the missing superannuation entitlements of many workers. I have talked about centralisation of the Taxation Office staff in the ACT to the exclusion of people in areas like Western Australia. I have talked about the issuing of multiple Australian business numbers to businesses who only ever wanted one number and, indeed, on occasions issuing wrong Australian business numbers and having to tell businesses, `No, that's not your proper ABN, you've got to use this one,' after they had printed off stationery and incurred various business costs, having relied on the initial advice. I have also talked about the private binding ruling saga where hundreds of millions of dollars, and perhaps even billions of dollars, have been lost in tax revenue where the Taxation Office should have been chasing up dodgy offshore employee benefit superannuation and employer superannuation schemes. Since the parliament has been informed on a number of occasions about the failings of the Taxation Office and this government concerning those questions, I think there are other issues that need to be raised in this House as well. Indeed, government members could do with some reminding about the slipshod manner in which this government has handled tax administration issues. It would seem that the government is starting to drown under the weight of these administrative failures. One of the most conspicuous failures of this government in relation to tax administration and excise administration is that of petrol. It showed in the Treasurer's face over the last few days in question time and in the parliament generally as he struggled to get his head around the Prime Minister's populist trashing of what remained of the surplus to make up for his own inadequacies. The government might not have been brought to the situation of making this backdown on petrol indexation as it has done if it had been prepared in the first place to keep its promise that the GST would not increase the level of petrol taxation and therefore should not lead to any petrol price increases. We saw that in the first instance the government claimed that GST would not lead to an increase in petrol taxes, but in fact what we had was a reduction—MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr Baird—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The bill that is before the House is the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Amendment Bill 2001. The member for Wills is moving well outside the confines of the bill, and I ask you to direct him to return to the provisions that are contained in this bill.10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—I heard the member for Wills at the beginning clearly outline his amendment, and I thought he was sticking to the detail. But I will listen and, if the member for Wills was ranging widely, I am sure he will bring his comments back to dealing with the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Amendment Bill.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Mr Deputy Speaker, I point out to the member for Cook, who may not have been present when I moved my original amendment, that the third part of my amendment to the motion for the second reading condemns the government for giving priority to the GST at the expense of other important taxation matters. I am expressly speaking to that part of my amendment, and I intend to continue doing so.We had a situation where the government said that the GST was not going to increase the level of petrol taxes. What happened was that it dropped the excise by some 6.7c a litre, but then we found GST adding on 8.2c a litre—an immediate windfall gain to the government of the order of 1.5c a litre. That gain increased in the course of the year 2000 as international circumstances led to petrol prices increasing generally. We saw the GST adding on its own increase, because it is a retail tax, and leading to higher petrol taxes and higher petrol prices. Then we saw the February excise indexation where the GST effect on the CPI generally was passed through. So we saw the petrol excise and the GST tax upon a tax each feeding off the other in a vicious inflationary spiral, and there was an awful lot in the way of extra petrol taxes being paid as a result of the GST. Unfortunately, the government has refused to clarify the extent of the windfall. I think many Australians were disappointed about the broken petrol tax promise, the refusal of the government to admit that it had broken its promise and its refusal to quantify what the impact of that was and what the windfall gain to the government was. We got condescending lectures from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister concerning those matters, which served only to further anger taxpayers and no doubt played their part in the election results in Western Australia and Queensland. We were told over and over again by the government that it could not give the excise back because that would see the budget surplus disappear. That was a bit rich. All we wanted back was the windfall gain which had accrued to the government as a result of its breaching its petrol tax promises in the first place. To add to this, we witnessed a major blunder on the part of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, entirely relevant to this issue of the competence of the government's administration. He was forced to reveal, just prior to the Western Australian state election, that a whopping $2.9 billion had not been used for road funding as it should have been. We had what was a damning report from the Australian National Audit Office on the management of our national highways, a report which raised very serious questions on the administration of road funding within the Department of Transport and Regional Services and, indeed, raised questions about the confidence of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to handle this most important policy area. That was a report which directly criticised the Minister for Transport and Regional Services for failing to report to the parliament important financial details about road funding. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services had to admit that he had failed to fulfil his requirements under the Australian Land Transport Development Act. He said, `Technically, like previous ministers, it would appear that I am in breach.' My colleague the shadow minister, the member for Batman, will talk about the situation in relation to previous ministers, but this was in fact the second time that the National Audit Office had criticised the minister for failing to comply with his own legislation.At the end of 1999 the Australian National Audit Office slammed the transport minister for breaching aviation legislation when he failed to supply corporate plans for two years. It is simply not good enough to have the minister saying, `I didn't know about the requirements of the legislation.' He is the minister. He is someone who has been feeling the pressure on petrol and road funding. He put out a misguided and desperate attempt to gag his MPs from talking when the Audit Office report was released. Australian motorists know only too well that they have been short-changed by the Howard government in relation to petrol prices and road funding. Enormous moral and political pressure has been put on the government by the opposition, motoring organisations and a range of community groups to stick to its promises concerning GST on petrol and remove the spike and hand it back to motorists.The administrative neglect and sloppiness underlying the need for this piece of legislation is apparently not attributable to the current minister for transport—although it is not very far from his door! The bill before the House is necessary because the Howard government has failed since 1996 to declare Kingsford Smith airport a leviable airport. This declaration allows the collection of a levy on jet aircraft to cover the cost of the impact of their noise on the community. That enables us to put in place noise amelioration programs such as the insulation of houses and public buildings. The last time Kingsford Smith airport was declared a leviable airport, as was intended under the legislation, was by the then Minister for Transport, the Hon. Laurie Brereton, on 18 September 1995. For continuity of the program, the next declaration was due before 1 July 1996. As we have now become aware, this did not occur and, as a direct consequence of that oversight, error or incompetence, the collection of the levy since then has been illegal. At some point in the history of this legislation, the responsibility for making declarations under the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 1995 has shifted from the minister for transport to the Treasurer. The timing and reasons for the shift in ministerial responsibility are not covered in the explanatory memorandum. But what is clear is that the last time this part of the legislation was adhered to was under the former Minister for Transport, Laurie Brereton, the member for Kingsford-Smith. Now we have the Assistant Treasurer taking the rap. It is a bit unclear, and no-one in government—Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Transport and Regional Services—is stepping forward to take responsibility for this and say, `It was my fault, I should have done it.' Clearly, this is a failure on the part of this government, a government which has been very remiss in relation to administrative matters, when what it needed to do, rather than be focused on the GST to the exclusion of all else, was to make sure that important administrative issues in relation to taxation were dealt with properly.I have talked about the failure of the transport minister to pay sufficient attention to the administration of his portfolio—in fact, his record is one of not taking responsibility for the consequences of his poor administration—and we have the recent exposure of the maladministration of the Australian Land Transport Development Act, to which I have referred, as a pretty good example to highlight his buck-passing. The first and obvious casualties were his two advisers. While, on the one hand, he took the defensive stance that he had operated the legislation in the same way as Labor had, claiming that more than the default 4.95c per litre had been spent on roads—making those defences to protect his own hide—on the other hand, he lashed out and sacked two key advisers. Mr Anderson claimed that those staff had failed, that they had not kept him informed, and he complained that he was not made aware of the issues in the Audit Office report until it was tabled and was therefore unable to prepare a response. In falling on his sword, Mr Oxley said:Mr Anderson only became aware of the tabling in parliament of the ANAO report, and the issues raised in it, after the event on Thursday, 8 February 2001.This is totally contrary to the minister's press release on 9 February, the day after, when he conceded that he was aware of the suggestion of a substantial surplus in the Australian land transport development special account last November. Frankly, this is a minister who has hidden behind a `nice guy' image for far too long—his actions on that day expose his desperation and his failure to accept proper accountability and responsibility for his errors.I now return to my amendment, which condemns the government for, amongst other things, giving priority to the GST at the expense of other important taxation matters. One of the things that has caused small business a great deal of needless grief, particularly during the summer holiday period, has been the obligation to fill out the second business activity statement. The government is now claiming that it has heard from small business, that it has listened to small business and that as a result small business will be given the option of annual reporting of their business activity statement obligations rather than being required to report on a quarterly basis. We have to take this announcement with a certain amount of salt because, when the government originally announced the business activity statement, it said that it had introduced the form after consultation with small business and after consultation with accounting bodies. The tax office claimed there had been widespread consultation and that this was the form that small business wanted and this was a form that was going to simplify the taxation system. Indeed, the Treasurer used to boast that his new tax system amounted to a simplification of the tax system. He went on record on a number of occasions, in this House and elsewhere, talking about simplification of the tax system. Mysteriously, after about 1 July last year when the GST came in, he stopped talking about this idea of simplifying the tax act. Increasingly, small business came to realise the full horror of the red tape obligations which had been placed on them and just how far from the truth the government's boast that it would cut small business red tape by 50 per cent had been. In fact, there have been surveys suggesting that, far from being cut by half, their red tape has doubled, in particular as a result of the GST and the business activity statement. The opposition has established an inquiry into the business activity statement which I have the honour of chairing. That inquiry will be looking not simply at business activity statement issues, although they are important. Of course, the option of annual reporting is a worthwhile option and one which we pressed on the government. The government has referred to us as being policy lazy. The truth is that, in recent times, we have not been able to produce policy fast enough for them to pick it up. After we pressed on them the option of annual reporting, they have agreed to put this forward as an option. But small businesses are saying, as well, `We still have to collect all this data on a daily and weekly basis, so to report it on an annual basis may not relieve our GST obligations a great deal.' We certainly heard that at the business activity statement inquiry when we had our first hearing in Melbourne on Friday. We went to the electorate of Melbourne Ports and we also heard from small businesses in the electorates of Chisholm and Deakin about issues affecting them, and they were concerned about the total GST based workload. It is an important task of this inquiry to hear from small businesses about not only business activity statements but also other aspects of the GST workload and how they might be improved. It is Labor's intention to seek the support of small businesses. This is a government which has talked the talk of small business but which has invariably failed to look after small business—whether it be issues of market power or retail concentration or any of those sorts of issues, it is always looking after big business. This is a tax system which was essentially designed by big business and the tax office, with precious little genuine input from small business. We are intending to change that. We are intending to come up with recommendations, through the business activity statement inquiry, designed to genuinely reduce the red tape burden for small business and make their GST compliance obligations simpler.In conclusion, this is a piece of legislation which we will support, but we note that it comes from a government which has been incompetent in dealing with the basic requirements of administration and which has been collecting the aircraft noise levy for nearly five years without any proper legislative authority. That is regrettably the kind of bungle which is all too typical of this government, which does not have its eye on the ball of day-to-day administration. It is regrettable that the parliament has been put in this situation but, nevertheless, it is clear that this legislation needs to be passed so that the levy can be collected on a legal basis and the important work of protecting residents who live around airports can continue.I represent an electorate which includes the Essendon Airport, and I know from residents who live around the airport that issues of airport noise are at times very important to them. One of the problems we have at Essendon Airport is that, although there is a curfew of sorts in operation between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., in fact, there are all too many aircraft which use the airport at night and disturb the sleep of local residents. Essendon Airport is located particularly close to local residential housing, which is a matter of metres away from several of the runways. Residents are concerned that the curfew is a Clayton's curfew, and noise from the airport does disrupt their sleeping patterns. They are also concerned that the government, in proposing, as it has proposed once before, the sale of Essendon Airport to private operators, may put residents in a situation where resident protections are diminished and existing regulations weakened or that, in any event, private sector operators will be anxious to maximise profit from that airport if it does turn out to be sold off and that residential amenity will suffer as a result. I know from my own experience that issues of aircraft noise are important to local residents and it is, on that basis, important that the levy is collected and that the work protecting residents via insulation is proceeded with. 10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Is the amendment seconded?WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.Sitting suspended from 6.28 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:0025124Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is my pleasure to rise tonight to support the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Amendment Bill 2001. I also note the comments that were made by the member for Wills opposite when speaking on this bill. He spoke most of the time on matters totally unrelated to the bill that was before the House during a generally wide excursion into perceived government failings. It was interesting to hear him speak at length on petrol pricing and on the failings of the government. Because the article written by Alan Ramsey on the weekend about petrol pricing was mentioned by the member for Wills, I thought it would be interesting to look at it. Alan Ramsey, who is a fairly independently minded individual, went through the actual statistical price increases that happened under various governments. What is particularly interesting is the level of hypocrisy that we see on the other side of the House, because Alan Ramsey actually pointed out that petrol excise went from 6.15c a litre when Labor came into office in March 1983 to 34.1c a litre by the time it lost office. So it was an incredible change in that they are talking about the 1½c increase that occurred at the time the GST was introduced—and that, the indexation, has been taken off by this government—but if we look at what happened under their government there was a rise from 6.15c a litre to 34.1c a litre in excise, which was not a bad effort.The member for Wills attempted to say, `We actually saw what was happening with BAS.' It was particularly interesting that he said, `We actually put forward that it should be done annually and when we did this the government embraced it.' Actually that indicated how far out of touch the opposition is because we never heard anything about BAS until it was raised in the coalition party room. When it was raised there and recommendations were put forward about having the BAS for companies with a turnover of less than a million dollars annually, suddenly the next day it became Labor Party policy. So I think the member for Wills needs to get his facts right over the actual chronological order in that the recommendations about what should happen came out of the party room. They did not come from the lazy policy concerns of the Labor Party but, rather, from the coalition parties.The other thing that he mentioned in his general comments as he ranged across the various issues of the bill was that his party was actually terribly concerned for small business and it was very concerned about issues concerning small business and retail concentration. We had an inquiry, a joint standing committee, into retail pricing and the retail sector and the recommendations that came from this particular inquiry were unanimous, supported equally by the Labor Party and the coalition. So I am not quite sure where this myth came forward that you were the party that was very much concerned about concentration of the retail sector. The unions, who of course relate to the larger companies operating in the retail sector, were very concerned about the outcome of the inquiry, so let us get real about where the Labor Party stands on these key issues that are brought up by the member for Wills as showing its great concern for small business, the retail sector and BAS. They have no credibility in any of them. As for fuel tax, Alan Ramsey put paid to that by just showing the huge level of increase in petrol taxes under Labor when they were in power. Secondly, there was no interest in the BAS until it was raised in the coalition party room. Finally, in terms of retail concentration, I would suggest that he look at the bipartisan recommendations that came down from the committee.Now I will refer to the bill, and I would hope to spend the rest of my time on the bill, as opposed to the shadow minister who ranged over everything else but the bill. He made the failures of administration a big issue. In fact, not one cent has been lost as a result of that. This is simply a mechanical bill where the collection that took place in the period from 30 June 1996 to now is simply deemed as part of the period. The money has been spent. The Secretary to the Treasury has admitted the failure of his department to correct this; it was not on the part of the department of transport. It is a mechanical failure. Nothing was lost in terms of collection and nothing was lost in terms of noise insulation, so all of this false bravado about the failures was not borne out in reality. The legislation amends the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 1995 and the Aircraft Noise Levy Act 1995. The levy was to be collected until 30 June 1996 and, because of a technical oversight, it was not recognised that this was not moving forward. That was discovered later, and it was reaffirmed as part of the need to bring in new legislation. It was noticed at first when they were looking at doing a similar levy at Adelaide airport. It should be stressed that this levy has been collected continuously since 30 June 1996, so there is no shortfall in the revenue arising from the oversight and, as I mentioned, this is done by way of deeming. Representing an electorate that receives almost 55 per cent of the total take-offs and landings in Sydney, I am very conscious of the impact of aircraft noise in Sydney. As somebody who lives on Cronulla Beach, which has aircraft going by each day, I can attest to the intrusion of this on everybody in their everyday life. However, my electorate falls just outside the ANEF guidelines determining where compensation is required. You need to be 30 ANEF levels or above in the decibel range and Kurnell is at about the 25 ANEF level. This means that public buildings, including the church and the school, are eligible for insulation, but no other buildings. This is very unfortunate, because it was twice recommended at the meetings of SACF—Sydney Airport Community Forum—that Kurnell be recognised as a special case and that, because of the extent of the flights that go over it, it should receive this insulation. Apart from the church and the school, no insulation has gone into the area and that is unfortunate. I have made representations to the minister, and I understand the problems that exist for him, as his own department is coping with the insulation levels of those who fall within the appropriate guidelines. We all have sympathy for those people who live in areas such as Sydenham, Marrickville and Petersham and who fall within those noise guidelines. But I make a special plea that the people of Kurnell need to be recognised. When the noise sharing program was in operation—and I believe that that worked reasonably well overall—the noise levels did increase over Kurnell if only because of the sheer volume of take-offs and landings. So I do believe that the people of Kurnell, who have often been put on with suggestions of the construction of an airport, should be recognised. This is a contentious issue. Of all international visitors to Australia, 68 per cent come by way of Kingsford Smith airport. The number of international visitors to Australia continues to increase. In 1975 there were 500,000 international visitors to Australia, last year there were 4.8 million international visitors and this year there are expected to be 5.2 million international visitors. With the projection that by somewhere around 2005 we will reach eight million international visitors, you know that this situation is not going to go away. The high aircraft noise levels across Sydney will continue, so this is an important piece of legislation recognising the disadvantage for those who live under the flight paths, particularly those who come in the orbit of the 30-plus ANEF levels. The levy applies to a number of airports around Sydney and Australia. The levy makes an important contribution towards funding the costs of properly insulating homes. It provides for double-glazing, the installation of soundproof batts in the ceiling, airconditioning, the replacement of a normal front door with a more solid, soundproof door, and the installation of a damper into a fireplace to prevent noise coming down the chimney. The estimate of these improvements is about $50,000 per house and the Department of Transport's cost ceiling for providing this insulation is $55,500 per dwelling. I will refer again to the problem of Kurnell in my electorate. While Kurnell falls just outside the guidelines, the Sutherland Shire Council says that any additions or alterations to buildings or any new construction must meet insulation guidelines. So there has to be double-glazing and various soundproofing measures for any building and yet there is no assistance from the federal government. People are being caught both ways and it would be nice either to see the council relax its requirements or to see some assistance for Kurnell.The levy raises about $40 million overall each year and by the end of January this year it had raised just under the substantial figure of $200 million. This is out of the total outlay by the government of nearly $350 million in insulating 3,300 homes and 80 public buildings around Kingsford Smith airport.In a survey we carried out in my electorate, we found a number of interesting things. Firstly, we discovered that the average period of residency in Kurnell, a village of 2,500 people, is 16 years. This is significant because you quite commonly hear people say, `These people don't deserve any particular recognition. They knew what they were doing when they bought into that area.' However, if the average length of time that people have been in that area is 16 years, it means that they were there well before the third runway was constructed. It is the third runway, of course, which has impacted very considerably on the quality of life of the people in Kurnell. There are 2,500 people who live in Kurnell. It is not just a small community of a few people; it is a real community. Secondly, 60.5 per cent of respondents to my survey indicated that their standard of living had been affected dramatically by aircraft noise. In addition, the very high figure of 90 per cent said they found aircraft noise to be `annoying' to `extremely annoying' in their day-to-day activities. Clearly it is a serious issue for the residents of this area.There was a particularly pleasing result for the Sutherland shire over a year ago when our region's representative on the Sydney Airport Community Forum, Mr Kevin Hill, was able to gain approval from CASA for the departure now known as `Deena Two Syd'. The `Deena Two Syd' departure relates to aircraft taking off from runway 16R and going over what is called `the dunes', that is, above the uninhabited Kurnell sand dunes area. This particular provision means that, after going over the dunes, they make a left-hand turn which takes them out further from the residential areas of North Cronulla and Cronulla and also Kurnell. It was quite successful and there was a noticeable, if not big, reduction in the level of noise in the general region.However, in recent weeks we have had complaints from the people of Bundeena that there has been no change in terms of `Deena Two Syd'. They would find sometimes in adverse weather that the aircraft would go overhead, and we understand that, but the calls indicated that the original flight path was being adhered to. Because of that, we made some inquiries from Airservices Australia. It appears that the reason for the change was that a recent software package omitted to include the manoeuvre, which meant that it could not be uploaded to the navigation systems of departing aircraft and they were therefore unable to perform it. It is a little unfortunate that this occurred. It would have been appropriate if this had been expedited because it was a change that was welcomed by the residents of the area. After pursuing this issue, it became apparent that that was the case. It is important that we protect the rights of the people who live in the area in terms of the noise levels and their quality of life.It is also important to recognise that Kurnell has a special and unique place in the history of Australia. It is the birthplace of modern Australia because it is the point at which we had European civilisation arriving in Australia. When we have the celebrations of the landing of Captain Cook, they also these days appropriately recognise indigenous culture within the area and the blending of the two communities. We have an official welcome from the Dharawal people, which is appropriate and the way it should be. Nevertheless, in recognising the very significant role that the Dharawal people have in the area, we also need to celebrate our heritage, and I think the Dharawal people would also understand that. The area is a site of considerable natural beauty and environmental significance. It is dominated by the 280 hectares of the Towra Point Nature Reserve, which is a Ramsar site that has migratory birds from both Siberia and Japan. It is surrounded by Botany Bay National Park and the Royal National Park, and it is all within a stone's throw from the centre of the city. The site could become a major focus for international visitors as well as domestic visitors. This is why it is important, in terms of noise insulation and a recognition of the unique role of Kurnell that we see the impact on a community—which not only has 2,500 people living there but is also caught by local government regulations, being just outside the requirements for noise insulation under the current requirements of 30 ANEF—as well as acknowledge its unique role in being the birthplace of modern Australia. If this site were in any other country, I think there would be much more celebration of the origins of that country. Here there is one lone obelisk that celebrates the arrival of Captain Cook but not too much else. It is time that we recognised the great significance of Kurnell in our community at several levels. This is paramount in terms of the noise problem that exists there.I believe the original formulation of this legislation is entirely appropriate. It was introduced by the previous government, and I commend them for it. It was a recognition that noise has a very deleterious effect on those on whom it impacts. Of course, if you are part of the tourism industry, which I was in my time between state and federal politics, it is fine for everyone to get the benefit of having an airport close to the city but there are those who are significantly disadvantaged. In saying that, we appreciate having the airport in such a great location, but it is also appropriate that we compensate those who feel the impact on a daily—often minute-by-minute—basis of the noise of the jet engines going overhead. So this legislation was appropriately crafted and put forward, and we now have legislation to ensure that it will continue. I for one think it is appropriate that we have it brought into this house so that this legislation continues.20:20:0025127Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise to speak on the second reading amendment in relation to the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Amendment Bill 2001. In so doing, I would like to draw particular attention to the ministerial incompetence of the Howard government in the transport portfolio and in particular the current Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson. The administrative neglect and sloppiness underlying the need for this bill is not attributable to the current minister for transport, but it is also fair to say that it is not far from his door. The bill before the House is necessary because the Howard government has failed since 1996 to declare Kingsford Smith airport a leviable airport. As has been explained by other speakers today, this declaration allows the collection of a levy on jet aircraft to cover the cost of the impact of their noise on the community. That is, to put in place noise amelioration programs such as the insulation of houses and public buildings. For the record, the last time Kingsford Smith airport was declared a leviable airport, as was intended under this legislation, was when the then minister for transport, the Hon. Laurie Brereton, made that declaration on 18 September 1995. For continuity of the program, the next declaration was due before 1 July 1996. As we all know, this did not occur and the collection of the levy since then has been illegal as a consequence of that oversight, error or incompetence. On 11 March 1996, the responsibility for making declarations under the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 1995 shifted from the Minister for Transport to the Treasurer. From this bill before us, it seems that someone forgot to tell Treasury of this responsibility. The reason for that shift in ministerial responsibility is not covered in the explanatory memorandum. What is clear, however, is that the last time this part of the legislation was adhered to it was under the then Minister for Transport, the Hon. Laurie Brereton. Now, the rap is being taken by the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer. When the details of this bill and the error it was correcting were advised publicly, my immediate thought was, in light of recent events—to put it rather plainly—`Here is another stuff up by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson.' Given the history of this legislation, the closeness of this issue to the transport portfolio and the fact that the last declaration was by the last minister for transport—and nothing since—anyone would be forgiven for thinking that this was another mess by the Deputy Prime Minister and member for Gwydir, Mr Anderson.The error, I suggest to the House, has a very John Anderson ring about it. The transport minister has been plagued by maladministration in his portfolio. Not only does the minister have a record of paying insufficient attention to the administration of his portfolio; he also has a great record of not taking full responsibility for the consequences. The recent exposure of his maladministration of the Australian Land Transport Development Act is a good case to highlight his buck-passing. The first and obvious casualties were his two advisers. While on the one hand taking the defensive stance that he operated the legislation the same way that Labor had, a point I will return to, and professing that more than the default 4.95c per litre had been spent on roads—while making those defences to protect his own hide—he lashed out and sacked his two key advisers. The minister claimed then that the staff did not keep him informed. He complained that he was not made aware of the issues in the Australian National Audit Office report until it was tabled and he was, therefore, unable to prepare a response. In falling on his sword, Mr Oxley said:Mr Anderson only became aware of the tabling in parliament of the ANAO report, and the issues raised in it, after the event on Thursday 8th February 2001.This is totally contrary to the minister's press release on 9 February 2001 when he conceded that he was aware of the suggestion of a substantial surplus in the Australian Land Transport Development Special Account last November. The minister has hidden behind his Mr Nice Guy image for far too long. His actions on that day expose his desperation and his failure to employ proper accountability and take responsibility for his incompetence. When you take a close look at the facts—and I deal specifically with Labor's record on the administration of the Australian Land Transport Development Act—you also see that quite often the minister has been out of order with his statements on that front as well. In his media statement in February, the minister tried to blur the significance of his maladministration by saying:The making of a determination is optional. Former Labor Ministers administered the Act in exactly the same way.Minister, you are wrong. The truth is that, when we go back and look at the facts, we see that the last road user charge determination was for the year 1993-94. As these charges were determined retrospectively, we find that it was actually gazetted by the then transport minister, the Hon. Laurie Brereton, on 18 January 1995. So, by simple and fair assessment, it is clear that the next time a road user charge was due to be gazetted was early 1996. We all know that in early 1996 we were in an election and that the next scheduled charge was to have been determined by the transport minister in 1996. Plainly, that was not Laurie Brereton. The last federal Labor transport minister was in charge and competent with the administration of his portfolio, unlike successive Howard government transport ministers. Our Labor transport ministers did not administer the act in the same way as the current minister, John Anderson, and it is an insult for him to suggest they did.While we are on the subject of contrasting the respective competence of Labor and the coalition on the administration of the Land Transport Development Act, I will now turn to the issue of tabling reports. This was another prime example of the failing of this transport minister as identified by the Australian National Audit Office this year. What was revealed was that the minister had not tabled annual reports in accordance with the requirements of the same act. I therefore requested a list of all the reports tabled under section 21 of that act and found some interesting and telling facts—if anything, telling gaps. On 20 May 1993, the review of operations, volume 1, covering 1989-91 was tabled; on 14 December 1993, the review of operations, volume 2, covering 1991-92 was tabled; on 28 June 1994, the review of operations, volume 3, covering 1992-93 was tabled; on 28 March 1995, the progress report for 1993-94 was tabled; and, on 21 August 1996, the progress report for 1994-95 was tabled. It then seems that the Howard government transport ministers took their eye off the ball. It seems that, after the August 1996 report was tabled—presumably, the preparation of that report was well under way under outgoing Minister Brereton—no other reports were tabled until 1999. The requirement under the act was ignored until 8 December 1999 when the current minister tabled three outstanding reports on the same day. Those reports covered the years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. On that date in December 1999, the minister slipped in a catch-up tabling of three years worth of annual reports. I submit to the House that this is no way to run an Australian Land Transport Development Fund. Contrary to the impression that the minister, John Anderson, has tried to peddle all around the media, it is not how Labor administered this important legislation. Today, as we speak, the transport minister has still not complied with the act. The reports covering 1998-99 and 1999-2000 have still not been tabled in the House.When the issue of the failure of the minister for transport to notify a road user charge arose—that is, when the audit office exposed the administrative failing that led to a nominal surplus in the land transport development account—this minister tried to say that that was the same as when Labor administered the fund, and he scapegoated his staff. This is blatantly wrong. It is now obvious that the problems with administering the act arose when the Howard government came into office. It was also the case with the administration of the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act that all was fine until the incompetence of the Howard government intervened. Obviously, the machinery of government is held in contempt by the Howard government. Since the incompetence of the Howard government caused all this anger and angst and fuelled the general mistrust already existing in the community, the minister has been doing his best to show up some sort of division within the Labor Party on this issue. Not one quote has been produced that gives any truth to the rhetoric. We have taken an honest, open position on this matter. We have nothing to hide, as we administered this act in accordance with the requirements of the parliament. By contrast, the Howard government's stream of incompetent transport ministers has mucked up the administration of the Land Transport Development Act, and it was appropriate that the Audit Office exposed the consequences as it did. This is not the first time the Audit Office has exposed the poor administration of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson.The 1999 Audit Office report into aviation safety compliance found that the Civil Aviation Act was not being complied with. Again, it was an issue of the minister not tabling reports in parliament—namely, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Corporate Plans. That Audit Office report found:The finalisation of only two corporate plans in four years since it was established represents a clear breach of the legislation. As an aside, that was the same Audit Office report that revealed that CASA inspectors were spending only 15 per cent to 17 per cent of their time on surveillance tasks.Again, the federal transport minister, Mr Anderson—your close friend, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley—was exposed for not meeting his legislative responsibilities, let alone his ethical reporting requirements to this parliament. This is the same minister that sat on the government response to key road and rail reports for years, for instance, the Planning not patching report, tabled in 1997, and the first of three key rail reports tabled in August 1998. The industry had to wait until mid-2000 for a response on any of those reports. Then it was a response so vague and brief that it did not give credit to the effort that went into those reports. I draw to the attention of the House that there are other reports outstanding on the minister's desk. In December 1998, the minister commissioned a high-level industry-government task force to provide him with options to increase the international competitiveness of Australian shipping. While the Australian shipping industry is left to wither on the vine, the report on how competitiveness can be increased is gathering dust on his desk. The transport minister last week admitted another major failing in his portfolio area. It has been revealed that the minister broke his promise on the collection of avgas and avtur levies. This is a matter I spoke at length on in the adjournment debate last Thursday evening. In the May 1999 budget, the House will recall, the minister imposed a levy of 0.51c per litre on aviation fuel to keep down the cost of regional and general aviation towers. It should be pointed out that the cost of these towers became unaffordable because of the location specific pricing policy of the Howard government. Under that policy, charges were reduced at the major airports but increased significantly at regional airports; for instance, in Northern New South Wales close to the Deputy Speaker's electorate. What became obvious last week, conceded by the minister, was that all the revenue from that duty had not been used for the purpose promised to the Australian electorate. In fact, it is now clear that millions of dollars have been inappropriately collected from the aviation industry and have disappeared into consolidated revenue. In conceding this broken promise, what does the transport minister propose to do? Does he undertake to give the money back? No. He sits on the extra money and only commits to resolving the issue during the budget process. In the House the minister said:The government will be considering the fuel duty rate and the control tower subsidy as part of the budget process in the normal way this year. Do not hold your breath if you are in the industry and expect any payback—clawback is the order of the day under the Howard government, be it with respect to pensioners or people doing it tough in the aviation industry. It is therefore time that the House realised that breaking promises is not normal behaviour, even though the transport minister may think that promise-breaking is an acceptable tool of public administration. The Liberal Party and coalition government leader, John Howard, sets a fine example in that vein. Promises to the aviation industry and to the Australian community were broken. I simply suggest to the House that, if you take something under false pretences, you should hand it back. So when we heard that the collection of the levy from airlines for noise amelioration programs had been botched, it is no wonder we could detect the minister's hand in that incompetence as usual. The Audit Office did not detect the problem to be remedied by this bill when they did their audit of the government's management of non-primary levies last year. That report examined the administration of a number of government levies, including the aircraft noise levy. The oversight is a concern to those who rely on the independence, resources and rigour of the Audit Office to put the microscope on government administration. I note in the second reading speech that the minister attributes the failure to declare Sydney airport a leviable airport as an `administrative oversight'. This is reminiscent of the transport minister sacking two staff to cover his own failings. In conclusion, I suggest that it is time that Howard government ministers took appropriate responsibility for their actions. It is time that the Howard government ministers got their houses in order and attended to the business and machinery of government. After all, that is what they are paid for, that is what the taxpayers of this country expect of government ministers, and that is why they are resourced to give their attention to such activities. On that note, I speak in support of the second reading amendment moved by the member for Wills. I believe that, on the basis of the material that I have outlined to the House today, that second reading amendment ought to be supported by both sides of the House. I say that because it was the Prime Minister who said, on his election in 1996, that he was for improved standards on accountability and ministerial competence. The record I have outlined to the House this evening clearly proves that successive Howard government transport ministers since 1996 have failed the standards set by the Prime Minister on being sworn into office in mid-1996. Those standards went to attending to the day-to-day requirements of the operation of parliament and ministerial portfolios, and also to public accountability, integrity and honesty in government. It is for that very reason that the Labor opposition has moved a second reading amendment that: ... condemns the Government for its incompetent administration of the aircraft noise levy, in failing to declare Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport a `leviable' airport for the period from 1 July 1996 to 21 February 2001 ...The second reading amendment also:... condemns the Government for collecting in excess of $150m—not a small amount—from aircraft operators without due legal authority as a result ...Thirdly, the second reading amendment:... condemns the Government for giving priority to the GST at the expense of other important taxation matters.When someone accepts the responsibility of being a government minister, Australian taxpayers expect accountability and attention to detail with respect to their performance. The Howard government stands condemned this evening for not meeting that test. Even more importantly, the range of examples detailed to the House this evening clearly suggest that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services is an abject failure when it comes to the administration of his transport portfolio—a very important portfolio. I believe that he should come into the House and give a full and proper explanation with respect to all the issues I have raised in the debate this evening. I say that because the issues I have raised go to competence of government, and the Australian taxpayer expects better. (Time expired)20:40:0025131Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—The Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 1995 established a regime for the imposition and collection of an aircraft noise levy at certain airports. The funds are used to recover the cost of noise amelioration programs funded by the federal government. It is the case, as the member for Batman has indicated, that there was an administrative oversight within Treasury and that there was no subsequent declaration until 21 February 2001, after the initial period ran out on 30 June 1996. The Treasury discovered the oversight in January in the course of preparing a declaration to make Adelaide airport leviable. The Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer were informed on 9 February after Treasury had sought legal advice on the matter. The Secretary to the Treasury accepts full responsibility. It is worth noting that the amount of levy paid before each landing of a jet aircraft is based on the noise characteristics of each particular aircraft. For example, under the methodology for calculation of the levy, aircraft such as a B747 pay some three to four times as much as a quieter aircraft—for example, a B737. I want to address some of the issues raised by the member for Batman in this debate on the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Amendment Bill 2001. It is, under our system of adversarial parliamentary debate, the role of the opposition to flush out and to expose the government for its weaknesses. That is an acceptable practice within our system. It is also, on our side of the House, quite acceptable to remind the House that Minister Anderson, the member for Batman's opposite number, was not the responsible minister when this event actually occurred—that is, at the end of June 1996. There is much discussion about the ANAO report, and I for one would be wondering why it took so long for the internal workings of government to bring this to the fore. I am not aware that the ANAO has specifically written to the minister to advise him—or to the Secretary to the Treasury. That certainly is not apparent to me. Perhaps there is a responsibility on all sections of government when these oversights occur to bring them to the attention of a number of people who are the relevant authorities. There has been some discussion about expenditure exceeding collection. In the case of the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act, let me be quite specific. The Sydney airport noise amelioration program to 31 January 2001 has seen the expenditure of $347 million and the collection of something like $197 million. So let us be quite clear that there has been much more money expended on things like insulation in 3,349 homes and 83 public buildings. Some 146 residences have been voluntarily acquired; up to 1,000 residences remain to be insulated if the owners choose to take up that offer. It is worth noting that Adelaide airport, as announced in the 2000-01 budget, will also have the benefit of this levy which will come into effect from 1 May 2001. It is estimated that the levy in Adelaide will raise about $6 million and should apply for around 10 years.I should also point out that when the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act was introduced into the parliament in 1995 it was made quite clear that the levy would apply at Sydney airport over a period of up to 10 years. There was never any doubt about the intention. Indeed, we might ask why it was only included in the legislation for that nine months. Nevertheless, Treasury discovered it, took legal advice and acted. The minister—who of course was not the responsible minister at the time—has brought this to the attention of the House through the good offices of the Assistant Treasurer.A few other points are worth making. There is some discussion in the amendment about the collection of $150 million from aircraft operators without due legal authority—and I think I have covered that. As far as condemning the government for giving priority to the GST at the expense of other important taxation matters is concerned, that is normal opposition adversarial discrediting the government style of politics—that is, after all, the role of opposition. If we examine the Labor Party in government for a moment, I can remember a few outstanding examples. I seem to remember a Prime Minister that forgot to put in his tax return for a while. I seem to remember that there was a certain Leader of the Opposition claiming that there was $700 million in the bank when the new government came to office but we found that it was about $10 billion short. So these things work both ways. I will not say much about the l-a-w tax cuts or the excise or the increase in the sales tax. As far as the standards of the government are concerned, it is, in the words of the member for Batman, perhaps easy to accept promise breakers—that is, of course, denied on this side of the House, as he would expect—but this was a simple oversight which the Secretary to the Treasury has accepted full responsibility for. The minister of the day had no connection whatsoever with it and the Assistant Treasurer has acted appropriately. As far as the general issues around an airport like Sydney are concerned—being South Australian, I guess it is a little dangerous for me to venture in and discuss that issue—there can be little doubt that the politics of the Sydney airport have been with us for at least two decades to my memory, and probably well before that. I seem to remember ministers of the Labor Party resigning. There is the well-known Bennelong funnel and there are all sorts of action groups. Then, in this recent period—with the Olympic Games and that remarkable effort of moving so many people in those wonderful few weeks of athletics and all sorts of sporting activities—we saw Sydney airport do a remarkable job for that city and for this country. But the politics remain and this is another small component of that, I guess, as far as the history books will judge. Having flown into Sydney many times now and understanding a little more about the reality of it, there is no doubt in my mind that it serves that city and the state of New South Wales particularly, as well as the nation, in an exceptionally effective manner. The most important part about this bill, of course, is that the levy collection does offset the inconvenience that those citizens have endured over the recent years particularly. It is to be hoped that in the future that people in the thousand homes that remain to be offered to have their insulation put in will see the benefit of this levy—after all, that is the main purpose of it—and that the whole issue of administration will pass into the ether. I am sure it will. This has just been an oversight; the process went on. As I said, the Secretary to the Treasury noted it when they were looking at the Adelaide airport and the whole matter has been resolved.20:50:0025133Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Tonight I rise to support this bill and to particularly support the amendment moved by the member for Wills, Mr K.J. Thomson. I also support the sentiments echoed by the member for Batman and shadow transport minister, Martin Ferguson, who would make a much better minister than Minister Anderson and Minister Fahey presently in respect of the issues I am going to raise on this bill.The explanatory memorandum by the Treasurer before the House notes that the purpose of the bill is to deem Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport—SKSA—to be declared a leviable airport for the purposes of the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 1995 from 1 July 1996 to 21 February 2001. The second reading speech of the Hon. Mr Joe Hockey, member for North Sydney and Minister for Financial Services and Regulations, on this bill was made in this House on 1 March 2001. The minister noted that:The funds that are raised through the levy are used to recover the costs incurred in providing an airport noise amelioration program.As such, the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Amendment Bill 2001 is both necessary and, quite frankly, long overdue in rectifying this technical error in the original legislation. However, the question of who benefits from the noise amelioration program is an ongoing saga of drawing aircraft noise lines in the sand. Obviously, residential areas affected by aircraft noise differ widely depending on changes in aircraft movements. In the case of Sydney airport, the government have made a host of announcements which have thrown noise affected residential and other areas into complete turmoil. Far from the brave promises that were made prior to the 1996 election by the then opposition—now the government—the action they have taken has been precisely the opposite of what they have said. It is therefore timely to remind this House of what the government committed themselves to in terms of aircraft noise. On 8 February 2001 in this chamber, I cited the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon. John Sharp, who said in his second reading speech on the Airports Bill 1996 on 29 May 1996:I will refer particularly to the first item in the amendment, which reads:No sales should occur until all Environmental Impact Statement processes are completed and the future of Sydney West Airport is resolved;We are determined not to sell Sydney Mascot airport and Sydney West airport until such time as we have satisfactorily completed the environmental impact studies and decisions are made in relation to that. We will not be putting on the market Sydney Mascot and Sydney West airports until such time as we fulfil our election commitment, made by the former shadow minister for aviation, Senator Parer—and indeed reiterated by the now Prime Minister (Mr Howard), then opposition leader—that we will not do so ...... ... ...... put them on the market and you will achieve the highest possible value for those airports when you put them up for sale. So we believe that that is the appropriate approach to achieve the goal of obtaining the highest value for Sydney's airports.I further note the second reading speech of the Hon. John Fahey, the Minister for Finance and Administration, on the Airports Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 on 1 October 1997. On page 8958 of the House Hansard, he says:The sale of the Sydney basin airports, which are Kingsford Smith, Hoxton Park, Bankstown, and Camden airports, will take place only after completion of an environmental assessment of options for the site for the second Sydney airport and when the government has effectively addressed noise issues relating to Sydney airport. I next turn to the insightful comments of the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development and member for Lyne, the Hon. Mark Vaile, in his second reading speech on the Sydney Airport Demand Management Bill 1997, delivered on 1 October 1997 and found at page 8861 of Hansard.He said:We went through that rigorous EIS process with Holsworthy to make sure that ... the decision on Sydney's second airport was justified on solid grounds. We can move forward now to the completion of that process with Badgerys Creek. But wait, there is more. The member for Lyne made these bold assertions about aircraft noise from Sydney airport. He said:The government promised a more equitable distribution of the aircraft noise problem. We have done that. The government promised a review of the flight paths for Mascot airport, and we have done that. Mr Vaile went on to heap laudatory praise on the long-term operating plan for Sydney airport. He said:Under the coalition, 17 per cent of aircraft movements will be to the north, 15 per cent to the west, 13 per cent to the east and 55 per cent will be to the south.Since the introduction of the long-term operating plan for Sydney airport, the facts have consistently contradicted these forecasts. The most recent statistics from Airservices Australia's Sydney Air Traffic Services—the Sydney airport operational statistics for December 2000, which were received in my office on 26 February 2001—indicate, on page 12 of the report, that aircraft movements to the north of Sydney airport were 27.4 per cent of total movements while aircraft movements to the west were 8.5 per cent. But wait, there is even more.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr Danby—More!83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—You are right, Member for Melbourne Ports. Mr Vaile went on to say:What is being done here is exactly what we set out to do—that is, to create a more equitable situation not only for the movement of aircraft in and out of KSA but also for the distribution of noise. We are a government that has inherited a problem that we are dealing with ... There has been positive action to deal with the surrounding suburbs around KSA in an equitable way. We have put those measures in place.The people of Sydney were given promise after promise by the Howard government. Again I cite Mr Vaile from his second reading speech on the Sydney Airport Demand Management Bill 1997:But you can rest assured that this government will deliver on alleviating the problems as far as the second airport in the Sydney basin is concerned. We will not be vacillating on this the way the Labor Party has done. ... ... ...We will not muck about and wait for 13 years to pander to different interests in some of our electorates, as we have seen happen around KSA. We will get on with the job so there is certainty in what is going to happen in aviation in Australia.The government has blood on its hands in this matter tonight. The sheer hypocrisy of these words ring clear in demonstrating the difference between the actual measures and the promises and vain rhetoric that are in these speeches. And what are those measures? The actual measures that this government has implemented are: (1) the proposed sale of Sydney airport without an airport at Badgerys Creek—not only not commenced after five years of office but now being effectively abandoned altogether; (2) the proposed sale of Sydney airport in contradiction of the provisions of the Airports Act 1996, in particular section 18, which requires the lessee of Sydney and Sydney West airports to be the same person or a subsidiary thereof; (3) the abandonment of Badgerys Creek after the EIS process had eliminated Holsworthy as an airport site; (4) the relocation of regional aircraft from Sydney to Bankstown airport; (5) the announcement made on 13 December 2000 that Bankstown airport is to be an overflow airport for Sydney airport; and (6) the introduction of the precision runway monitor system without any prior consultation with the Sydney Airport Community Forum or other community representatives, effectively meaning the restoration of parallel runway operations at Sydney airport and thus undermining the implementation of the long-term operating plan. When we read these speeches together, we get a disjointed series of comments by various coalition members. I turn to section 18 of the Airports Act, for this section is highly significant in light of this bill's operative parts. The explanatory memorandum to the Airports Bill 1996, tabled by the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon. John Sharp, states at page 8:This clause ensures that the airport-lessee companies for Sydney Airport and Sydney West Airport have a common holding company. The requirement for common ownership of the two airport-lessee companies is necessary for the implementation of the Government's development objectives for Sydney West Airport and the complementarity of the two airport operations in Sydney.And what are the `government's development objectives for Sydney West airport' to which the minister refers? To answer this question, one must turn to the coalition's stated aviation policy Soaring into Tomorrow, dated 13 February 1996. I welcome the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, the member for North Sydney and former chairman of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, who is coming into the chamber to listen to what I am saying. DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—What do you know about aircraft noise?83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—I know a lot about it, like you. This is the problem we have now and you should be doing something to make sure that you do not flog the airport off without committing yourselves to building a second airport contemporaneously with the sale of—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Bring back Paul Zammit!83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—Don't worry about Mr Zammit. His preferences were warmly received on election night. Page 14 of the coalition's aviation policy states:The coalition will lease the 22 Federal Airports Corporation airports, but, at the same time, introduce a regulatory framework to protect the interests of current and future airport users and local communities ... We have announced that we will not lease Sydney Airport and Sydney West Airport until there is a satisfactory solution to the current aircraft noise problem in Sydney. The leasing process will be deferred until two conditions are met:• the east west runway is reopened; and• a genuine environmental impact statement on Sydney West Airport is completed.There is an interesting anecdote in the coalition's policy:The Coalition will set the X values in the CPI-X system for Sydney Airport and Sydney West Airport so that the charges at Sydney West are lower than the ones at Sydney, to give airlines an incentive to use the new airport.This tells me that, in light of the actual announcements by this government on 13 December 2000, the government has deliberately abandoned Badgerys Creek so that it can maximise charges under the CPI-X system, thus maximising profits for that airport. Again, the government has abandoned its own policy in favour of sheer greed and the lust for money. In turn, the government is sacrificing safety and has abandoned its policies relating to the management of Sydney airport and aircraft noise. I put to this government that, over the last five years, it has participated in a systematic campaign of deception of the Australian people, by selling its various parcels of legislation in the hope of aircraft noise sharing amelioration. However, all the while, this government has systematically sought agenda other than the publicly declared intention of the various bills and legislation it has enacted through sheer force of numbers.I put it to the House that the real agenda is to sell all four Sydney Basin airports at the highest price possible, by maximising their utility in the hands of the new privatised owners. Hence my question on notice No. 2426 on the Notice Paper today. I hope the minister has a look at it. The government has betrayed the public through a systematic campaign of deception, as demonstrated by its repeated conduct in this House in the various speeches made by not one but several frontbenchers and backbenchers of this government with respect to aircraft noise. What is the deception to which I refer? I put this question to the House: how can the government's development objectives as referred to in the explanatory memorandum to the Airports Bill 1996 be fulfilled without the existence of or even intention to construct a second Sydney airport at a known location? As I said earlier, the provisions of section 18 of the act clearly contemplate the existence of Sydney West airport before Sydney airport is leased. The exact parameters of Sydney West airport must be known before Sydney airport can be leased. These parameters are critically important if the government's development objectives are to be realised. The reason for this is simple. By analogy, you cannot learn how to box with only one arm; you must train with both arms. This government's two-airport strategy for the Sydney Basin is obviously predicated on the known parameters of Sydney West airport. You simply cannot devise a two-airport development strategy without knowing the operational parameters of the second airport. This government has decided to sell a 50-year lease for Sydney airport whilst abandoning Sydney West airport. The Howard government has thus exhibited that very `pandering' to `different interests' to which Mr Vaile referred against the Labor Party when we were in power. I repeat what I said last week in this House when I was speaking on the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. There is no EIS on the impact of Bankstown Airport as an overflow airport pursuant to the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. There is no EIS on the impact of Bankstown Airport in its newfound role, including, for that matter, the interaction between Bankstown, Sydney, Camden and Hoxton Park airports, including aircraft safety impacts. Let us be clear. Bankstown Airport is not Sydney West airport. `Sydney West airport' means, for the purposes of the Sydney West airport EIS of 1996, Badgerys Creek. I repeat: Badgerys Creek. As Badgerys Creek has been shelved, that means there is no Sydney West airport. That is a bloody disgrace. No mere announcement can substitute Sydney West airport for Bankstown Airport. The member for Watson understands quite clearly what I am saying here tonight. I am pleased he is here in the chamber, because he has an interest in this. He has been in this place a lot longer than I have. The substantial technical analysis in the Sydney West proposal, which includes both the 1996 EIS and the 1997 supplementary EIS, contains comprehensive analysis on the impacts of that airport proposal. No similar documentation exists for the interaction between Bankstown Airport as an overflow airport and Sydney airport, thus making a mockery of this government's development objectives for aircraft management.The member for Lyne said he represents `regional Australia'. The shifting of regional aircraft movements to Bankstown in order to allocate the most lucrative slots to jet-only aircraft demonstrates the government's commitment to regional Australia. Ha, ha! The betrayal is absolute. It is little wonder the National Party is decaying and its supporters are turning to Country Labor to look after their interests. Today's National Party does not represent the interests of country people. Today's National Party is a servile agent of the Liberals. I am sure that the people where I was born and bred, in Dunedoo, New South Wales, would agree that the National Party is not representing their interests. Just have a look at Labor's vote for Country Labor in the next federal election. You will get a shock, and so will the National Party—and so will the Liberal Party.This bill is designed to validate moneys being received from the noise levy on users of Sydney airport. For the reasons I have mentioned, the benefits of this noise levy are only as effective as the areas of Sydney that are subject to its benefits. The decisions of this government and the actions they have taken demonstrate the worst scenario of aircraft noise in the Sydney Basin. I will not stand a bar of it, and I will be in here every day and night when this parliament is sitting talking about this issue and putting questions on the notice paper. The decisions of the government and the actions they have taken demonstrate absolutely that they have got no interest in looking after the people of Sydney on this issue. The government's own words condemn them. The more I dig into the government's decision on this issue, the more complete the betrayal becomes. We owe the people of Sydney a solution to aircraft noise that is fair and equitable. We owe that to the people of Lowe, the electorate I represent. What the Howard government are doing is criminal. The government must not be allowed to sell the lease of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport without the buyer being required to build Sydney West airport. That is what the government promised. Finally, this bill, like so many other bills from this government relating to aircraft noise, says one thing but the conduct of this government shows another thing. I urge the people of Australia to make their vote count in the year 2001, this year of a federal election, and show the government that it has not profited by pandering to those interests that would seek to maximise profit at whatever cost. On this issue, the government stands condemned. (Time expired)21:10:0025137McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I have been here for some years, as you have, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis. I think it is about 15 or 18 years on your part and 20-odd years on mine. It is not often that you find no government member willing to support a bill put forward in this House by the government, in this case the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Amendment Bill 2001. But tonight I am speaking after my friend and colleague the member for Lowe. When the member for Lowe sat down, the minister at the table, who represents one of the North Shore seats in Sydney, looked around to see who was behind her on the government benches to stand up and support the government's smelly dead cat sitting on the table in the House of Representatives tonight. The truth of it is that no-one is. There have been two government speakers on this bill. The member for Cook made a very good argument about what he has done to do the best for his constituents on aircraft noise. The member for Grey in South Australia had something to say as well. There are six other speakers on this bill, which makes eight opposition speakers and two government speakers. No-one from the government is willing to come in here tonight and defend the government's activities on airports in Australia. They are certainly not willing to come in tonight to try and fix up the mess that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services has got the government into on this issue. For years and years—indeed, all the time of his tenure as a minister—he has allowed the revenue to dribble out. He has allowed his department to illegally collect money from people who fly out of Sydney airport, because he was too stupid, too lacking in understanding, too lazy or too something to get the point that they actually had legislation that they had to regenerate. For this minister, that is an ongoing problem. We saw recently that the Auditor-General criticised him for a billion dollar screw-up on road funding. This is a minister that the government ought to take out and shoot before the exchequer is empty.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr Danby—The electorate will soon.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—The electorate will soon, as my dear friend from Melbourne Ports says, because the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—and he is not quite sure what he has to do with the regions—is a menace. He is a menace to people from the country and he is a menace to people from the city. On this bill, once again, he has shown that not only is he a menace but he is incompetent. In politics, if you are clever enough you can get away with being a menace. You and I have managed that from time to time, Mr Deputy Speaker. But, if you are an embarrassment, you go. The trouble is that Minister Anderson has become an embarrassment. He is not just a menace; he is a godforsaken horrible embarrassment. As my dear friend the member for Lowe said, `What we are talking about here tonight is a bloody disgrace'—that is what he said, and it is true. This minister cannot keep his eye on the ball about anything. Of course, he says it is all the fault of the department—probably the reason we are dealing with this Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Amendment Bill 2001, which they could not keep alive, is someone else's fault. It is always someone else's fault. The poor devils who worked in his office got the sack for the roads screw-up—who knows who is going to get the sack for this. It is for sure that someone will. But Minister Anderson, like the good old Kings boy he is, will slip-slide through—he is one of the born to rule people, one of those Liberals in gumboots. He is here representing what? He is here representing his own self-interest; that is precisely what he is representing. What Minister Anderson represents is a ministerial salary and a ministerial car and a minister who sacks staff. My friend the member for Barton is to speak in this debate after me but there are no government members here to defend the government; none of them are here. The minister at the table will not be defending the government—SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Of course I will be defending the government!4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—The government are not sure whether they are defending you either, but no-one is here to defend the government tonight. SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—No-one I know got paid $60,000 for riding a bike, of taxpayers' money4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—She is all kerosene and no care; that's her! Her trouble is that she is a sell-out, just like Minister Anderson is. The member for Lowe and I are here to talk about our constituents. The poor old constituents of the minister at the table also have a problem with aircraft noise but she keeps telling them, `Don't worry about the long-term operating plan. Don't worry about the precision management plan. Don't worry about the plan that brings all of these planes down over the North Shore.' Your property values are probably dead, and that is probably good socialism, from my point of view. The problem the government has is that this bill is a massive screw-up. If you believe what the minister's colleagues in the National Party think and what his friends in the Northern Territory think—you know, three strikes and you are out, or you are in—he has two on the board. There is the billion dollar screw-up on the road program that the Auditor-General picked him up on, and this one. This is the Deputy Prime Minister of our country and he cannot even get the accounts right.The member for Lowe, the member for Barton and I want to talk about the problems that this government has visited upon the people of Sydney, and the people of south-west Sydney in particular. As the member for Lowe said, `It is a bloody disgrace!' What we have seen with this government is one of the worst three-card tricks—or two-card trick, sharp card trick, spivvy trick—of all time, that is, their new plan for Sydney airport. Here is a bit of parliamentary and political history. I got elected to Marrickville council in 1971—that is longer ago than I like to remember, actually—and at that time the big interest in the east ward of Marrickville council was aircraft noise. It was Malcolm Fraser who had a plan for the major airport needs of Sydney—they do not like to remember Malcolm Fraser on that side of the House, because he was one of those cryptosocialists who got into their party and whom they have now driven out. There were studies, and there was this, that and everything else. It went on for years and years and years and the government finally decided Sydney needed another airport. You did not have to be Einstein or a brain surgeon to work that out! Sydney is an international city and most other international cities have a couple of airports—a big international operator out on the city rim, and a smaller, older, 1930s airport close in. Look at Sydney; maybe it is an international city—the Olympic Games sure showed that it was. Even Malcolm Fraser worked out that Sydney needed another airport. But, nearly 30 years later, where have these geniuses here worked out that the new airport ought to be? Bankstown. The overflow airport for Sydney airport, in the eyes of the geniuses from the government, is to be Bankstown. For people listening to the radio tonight—and maybe some of them live in Sydney so they will know—Bankstown is about 20 minutes from the centre of the city. Where is Kingsford Smith? It is about 10 minutes from the centre of the city. You would think, if you needed a new airport, that maybe you should not put it in the middle of where about one million people live—but these geniuses think you should! The member for Barton and I know where Bankstown is—it is surrounded by houses. There are houses everywhere out there. The former Prime Minister represented the area and he said that it would be over his dead body that anyone would put an airport at Bankstown and, to his great credit, he ensured they did not. But this government says the solution to aircraft noise and the use of aircraft in Sydney, the biggest international gateway in Australia, is to put a bigger airport at Bankstown. Even Malcolm Fraser in his wildest dreams would not have thought anyone would be stupid enough to come up with that—but this government have. They think it is a terrific idea. They are telling the people from northern New South Wales and the regional commuters, `Look, don't think you are going to go to Sydney airport; we will send you to Bankstown.' They are telling the people of Bankstown, `We're going to put another airport in your backyard.' The people are saying, `Hang on, listen, we have lived here all our lives, for 20, 30, 40, 50 years.' Bankstown was developed and expanded just after the war, so they have been living there fairly peacefully, and now these geniuses are going to drop an international airport there. They say it is only a commuter airport now but that, when Sydney airport grows and gets bigger, there is only one overflow airport and that is Bankstown. What are they putting in tomorrow? Bigger jets? Of course. It is crazy; it is absolutely crazy. It is like all the things that this government are doing at present. They are a government out of control. We have a Prime Minister who used to believe in decent fiscal arrangements. We have a Deputy Prime Minister who is mad—he does not know what fiscal arrangements mean and he lets them all lapse. The Auditor-General says that he has screwed up a $1 billion road program and this bill is because he forgot to put the levy back on. For a couple of days they started out by trying to blame us. They said that maybe something happened in 1996 and it never got renewed then. Then they had to go and look at the legislation and it said that after a particular time you had to renew it. Unfortunately for them, they had to renew it when they became government, but they never checked anything.This legislation is about trying to provide some relief to those people who live under the flight path of Sydney airport. It is about trying to get some money out of people who use the airport to provide some relief to those who live under the flight path, to put some insulation into houses, to do some things to make it livable—not pleasant, but livable. It is bad enough to live under the flight path of Sydney airport. I grew up in a house in Marrickville that was right under the flight path of the north-south runway of Sydney airport. As a child, I grew up seeing the television shake and the plates rattle when the planes flew overhead. I have spent a lot of my life in this parliament saying that we ought to do something about this problem. After all these years of debate about what you do about another airport for Sydney, we have an airport five miles away—Bankstown Airport. That is the new airport for Sydney. It is insane. It is like clearing Queens in New York and putting in a new airport there for La Guardia. It is like demolishing the inner suburbs of Rome and putting in a new airport there. It is like demolishing the Docklands in London and putting in a new airport for Heathrow. It is absolutely stark raving mad. But the government thinks that is the answer. The government thinks that the answer to the aircraft problem in Sydney is an airport at Bankstown. Tonight we are trying to fix up the mess made by the minister, who cares so little about the people who live in Sydney around the airport that he even forgot to continue the legislation that will pay for some of the soundproofing around the airport for people who live right under the flight path. If you ever want a metaphor for a government that does not care, does not know and does not understand, this legislation is it. This is it. For a government that is out of touch, for a government that has lost the plot, Bankstown as the overflow for Sydney airport is madness—it is just absolute madness. Tonight we are dealing with legislation that tries to fix up some of the minister's problems.I have been watching the policy stampede of the Prime Minister in the last few days, and I might share with the House a conversation I had with a journalist earlier tonight. He rang me up and asked me, `What are the procedures for the member for La Trobe's private member's bill about trying to make the states pay for the excise on petrol?' I said, `I'm not quite sure: what is your question?' He said, `Well, the government wants to bring this on.' You have to wonder. What we have now, and we saw it on the television earlier tonight, is the member for La Trobeand bless his heart, he is doing his best to become a minister, which is like getting on the Titanic, but that is his problembringing on a private member's bill which will be debated in this House on 2 April, the day after April Fools' Day, which is probably the appropriate day for it to come on. He is going to have us debate a private member's motion, which the government are going to support, which will destroy the intergovernmental agreement on the GST, the jewel in the crown for this government—the biggest and bestest thing they have ever done is foist the GST on us. In about four weeks time they are going to come in here like lemmings and vote to put a big hole in the federalism agreement—an agreement that the Prime Minister signed up to and told us was the best thing he had ever done. In four weeks time, `as sure as night follows day,' to quote one of his colleagues, the government will be in here voting for the private member's bill put forward by the member for La Trobe to do in one of the central points of the intergovernmental agreement.This is a government out of control; this is a government that has lost the plot. This is a government that thinks that the smart political thing in Sydney is to turn Bankstown into an overflow airport. What is this all about? It is all about trying to save the poor old member for Lindsay. Nothing will save the member for Lindsay. I do not think her staff members will save her, but that is a matter for her and the police. With this Sydney airport stuff the government is trying to solve a problem for a minister whose staff are being investigated by the police. That is where we are. The people of inner and south-western Sydney are being put to the sword and they are having an international airport with no relief foisted upon them by a government that wants to save a minister who has a police inquiry going on into corrupt electoral tactics in a local government electorate where she was the campaign director. This is why it is about to rort the whole system of aircraft arrangements in Australia—to save the member for Lindsay. Nothing will save her. I do not know why the people of my electorate, the people of the good member for Lowe's electorate, the people of the good member for Barton's electorate and the people of the good member for Sydney's electorate should have to put up with this scandal and disgrace to save the member for Lindsay—the Prime Minister's pet—who is being investigated by the police. But it is going to do all that and those good people who live in inner western Sydney and inner south-western Sydney will suffer, and Bankstown is the answer. Only a government that is in policy turmoil and out of its mind—WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr Danby—In its death throes.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—Yes, only a government in its death throes would think that Bankstown is the answer. It is not, it never will be, and the minister who has brought this crummy piece of legislation in here tonight to try to fix up a whole lot of money that he has wasted will find that out when he loses his seat at the next election. This will be the first Deputy Prime Minister of this country who has lost his seat for being stupid—and that is his problem. (Time expired)21:30:0025141McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—As the previous speaker, my friend and colleague the member for Watson, indicated in supporting the amendment, the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Amendment Bill 2001 indicates that the government are indeed in turmoil and that our role here as parliamentarians is to try to get this Minister for Transport and Regional Services out of the mess that he is in as effectively the government have been unlawfully taking money from air travellers under the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act. Why have they been unlawfully taking it? Because they have not bothered to certify, for the purposes of the act, that Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport is a noise affected airport. As one who represents the electorate of Barton, which abuts the south-western perimeter of the airport, I can certainly tell you that Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport is indeed a noise affected airport. Indeed residents living in the suburbs in my electorate, including Arncliffe, Rockdale, Banksia, Bexley and Carlton, extending into Kogarah and Hurstville, could all definitely confirm the chronic suffering of their families as a result of this government's policies on the operation of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport.The noise levy is necessary and the opposition will be supporting this legislation to fix up the government's errors because, under this government's policies, the levy is the only protection that some families in my electorate have. They are the families living virtually directly under the flight paths, a very short distance from the end of the east-west runway. Other areas, although they are certainly within the noise imprint given off by these planes, are missing out. There are all kinds of anomalies in this noise insulation program that I must put on the record. For instance, in my electorate there are areas where homes on one side of the street are insulated but those on the other side are not. In one area, Firmstone Gardens, which is literally a stone's throw away from the end of the east-west runway, residents are missing out on insulation because the area is not directly under where the planes are taking off. The ANEF measure, a noise forecasting measure used by this government, has just not taken into consideration the fact that the land that comes off the east-west runway in my electorate rises rapidly. Planes certainly rise after taking off from the airport, but so does the land, yet that is not taken into consideration in the calculation of the effect on those homes which are chronically affected by aircraft noise.Why do I blame the Howard government for families in my electorate being affected by aircraft noise? It is simple: one of their first acts when they came to government in March 1996 was to reopen the east-west runway for the purpose of implementing what they called a policy of `noise sharing'. As for this policy of noise sharing, when I wrote to both the minister for transport at the time, John Sharp, and the minister for the environment seeking their formal reasons for reopening the east-west runway, I got a frank reply in the minister for transport's letter that the reopening of the runway was for reasons that were `essentially political in nature'. The reasons which were essentially political in nature were, to use the government spin, to implement noise sharing in and around the environs of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. But when you look at the facts—and we have now had five years of facts—you can see a different story.This government has not got a lot to mark up as an achievement on its record—and certainly the GST is an achievement that the Australian people would rather not have—but it has created a geographical marvel. It has constructed a giant `mountain' that exists in the Prime Minister's electorate of Bennelong and that draws in quite a substantial part of the electorates of Bradfield and North Sydney. Planes cannot fly through this `mountain'. They are flying everywhere else in Sydney other than through `Mount Bennelong'. That is the protection that has been given to the Prime Minister's electorate. It is certainly not an exaggeration to say that that has been the effect of this government's policy, particularly during the most distressing times of the day when residents in my electorate are being affected. To explain just how that is occurring, it is necessary to explain for people who may not be familiar with Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport how the runway configuration operates. It has two major runways which are parallel, running north and south, and the runway which affects my electorate crosses those two runways; obviously, the east-west runway runs across those two runways. So, just as having an intersection on a major highway causes hazards, a runway running across two major parallel runways must obviously present risks. When you have jumbo jets carrying about 162 tons of fuel for their longer flights—you cannot put up traffic lights; you certainly cannot put in a roundabout—if an error occurs at that intersection, if planes or, indeed, other vehicles intersect at that point, obviously you have a potential disaster on your hands. You cannot have the two major parallel runways—which obviously carry more aircraft than a single runway—in operation with a crossing runway during peak hours. This tends to occur, as you expect, when businesspeople are flying into Sydney for appointments, in the morning between about 7.30 and 9 o'clock and then again in the afternoon between about 4 o'clock and 7 o'clock when they are flying back out of Sydney airport. This means that the crossing runway mode of operation cannot be used during those busy times.Why is that relevant to families living in my area? Because it has meant that the government, in its obsession to reach the target under the long-term operating plan—if you look at a map of the airport with the figures from the long-term operating plan, you can see that the government's target in my electorate is to have 15 per cent of all aircraft movements—has to fly planes over the homes of the families in my electorate at the less busy times. But those times tend to be the most distressing times for families: late at night between 10 o'clock and 11 o'clock and first thing in the morning between 6 o'clock and 7 o'clock. It is at these times—and virtually all day at weekends—that families cop it in my electorate. They tend to be the less busy times. When there is an opportunity to fly a plane out over the homes in my electorate, the direction of this long-term operating plan is to do so. This is having a devastating effect on the quality of life of families in my electorate. I might say for the record—and I wish that the bureaucrats in AirServices Australia would acknowledge this point—that what is happening is contrary to a motion I moved at the Sydney Airport Community Forum that, if one suburb suffers aircraft noise late at night, it should be relieved of that noise first thing the following morning. People who do not live in that area of Sydney will say that this is all a bit limited in its impact. It is not. As the father of four children, I know how hard it is to get children into bed of a night, let alone get them to sleep. If you are trying to get kids into bed at night, you cannot get them to sleep if planes are flying over until 11 p.m. And when I say `flying over', I have visited homes in and around the airport at that time and it is like standing on the edge of an aircraft carrier with planes flying out to battle. Trying to get kids into bed between 10 o'clock and 11 o'clock at night is just an impossibility. You do not need an alarm at 6 o'clock the following morning because you will be woken by a jumbo over the top of you. That is chronically distressing. The number of complaints I have had from mothers saying that their children's school work is being affected is terribly distressing and upsetting, and I think that fair-minded Australians would be saying that that just should not go on.I notice that today's Daily Telegraph and Sydney Morning Herald contained articles saying it has been demonstrated that sleep deprivation in children is manifesting itself in symptoms which are consistent with attention deficit disorder—an inability to concentrate and erratic moods. I would like a study to be done, quite frankly, on the children living in my area and the extent to which they are suffering from these traits because of the effect of aircraft noise. I am also receiving numerous reports of people suffering stress related illnesses—hypertension, heart complaints and, generally, anxiety and depression—because of this chronic sleep deprivation. It is really outrageous that it is being allowed to continue and that it is not being recognised by the bureaucrats. I spoke earlier of the obsession of flying planes over homes rather than over the waters of Botany Bay. It is an obsession and there is no need for it. Even on quiet days, I will be out in the front yard and there will be virtually no wind and, although these planes could be flying out over the waters of Botany Bay, they are flying over our homes! Again, this is the period at the weekend when the airport is less busy and the east-west runway could be used. These are the sorts of times these planes are flying over homes when they could be flying out over the waters of Botany Bay.Mr Deputy Speaker, I will give you some figures on that. In 1995 under the Labor government, only 29 per cent of aircraft movements were over residences in Sydney. Obviously, 71 per cent were over the waters of Botany Bay. That has now reversed. Now 53 per cent of aircraft movements from Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport are over homes and 47 per cent—less than half—are out over the waters of Botany Bay. That clearly could be turned around. Those figures could be dramatically increased. The number of overflights over water could be dramatically increased tomorrow, but the bureaucrats are saying, `If we do that, we are not going to be able to report to the government that we have achieved the targets of the long-term operating plan.' How stupid can you get? How lacking in commonsense can you get when planes carrying 162 tonnes of fuel are flying over homes instead of over the waters of Botany Bay? It is just completely ludicrous!Why do I say that they are being obsessed? They are being obsessed to the point where they are taking risks. To fly planes off the east-west runway, they have been compromising the crosswind and downwind component. They increased that component to a 25-knot crosswind and a five-knot downwind, despite the fact that the international standard is a 15-knot crosswind. This raised all kinds of concerns and has been doing so for several years. Towards the middle of last year the media reported on these concerns, and I will read some of the quotes. The Sydney Morning Herald of 26 June 2000 reads:Sydney's aircraft noise-sharing plan is under threat of collapse in the wake of claims by international pilots that the use of the east-west runway should be curtailed because of potentially dangerous crosswinds.The Australian of 27 June reported:Qantas pilots accused aviation authorities yesterday of putting residents' concern about noise ahead of safety by forcing aircraft to use Sydney airport's east-west runway in potentially dangerous situations.We had, for instance, the Sydney Morning Herald quoting a David Lidbetter who expressed his concerns that the government would even listen to the pilots' safety concerns because he was worried about planes flying over his North Shore home. They are the people the government is listening to, not the pilots and certainly not the residents in my electorate who are having planes flying over their homes instead of Botany Bay. As the Australian and International Pilots Association said:... safety must never become second to aircraft noise considerations. At present, noise considerations have taken over flight safety at Sydney airport.That is an objective, expert body entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the safety of not only aircraft travellers but also the people on the ground. The government has been ignoring them literally until it hit the fan. The pilots concerns are justified. If anyone is interested, in a reply to a question I asked on notice, Question No. 1743, the minister frankly gave incidents of aircraft accidents that had occurred around the world in crosswinds. These included one in Seoul, South Korea, when a Boeing 747 aircraft ran off a runway when landing at Seoul in crosswinds of 25 knots. There were incidents in Hong Kong and in Christchurch, and I recall the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation also reported an incident in Scandinavia. These concerns were not fabrications or pilots being too anxious; they were actual incidents that their colleagues had experienced and they were reporting to the government. They had been doing it for a number of years. Yet what was the government's response? On 15 August 2000—I commented a couple of weeks ago in another speech I made in the chamber that the government's answer to a question on notice demonstrates collusion between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices Australia—the minister replied that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, after reviewing a recommendation by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, `concluded that routinely operating runways with up to 25 knots of crosswind does not pose an unacceptable safety hazard'. What did the pilots do? They marked Sydney airport with a spot designating to the international travelling public that it is an unsafe airport. The government eventually succumbed to that international recognition of the unsafeness of their long-term operating plan and reduced the crosswind component to 20 knots. But it is still five knots higher than the international standards. As someone who enjoys sailing on Botany Bay, I can tell you that, if you have a wind in Botany Bay of 20 knots, you have a very strong wind. To land planes carrying the travelling public at 20 knots of crosswind is still totally unacceptable but will continue because of this government's obsession with their long-term operating plan. The plan itself involving crossing runways has been the subject of criticism. The government use terms such as `complexity' in their spin, as is the case in the answer to question No. 1164 when I questioned about the use of mode 8, which is this particularly complex crossing runway mode of operation. The government said, `We have attempted to mitigate the identified complexities but use of these techniques is expected to result in a lower capacity for mode 8.' In other words, they are saying, `There are some problems here. We had better slow this down because of the complexities.' Those complexities are safety considerations.Why is it a concern? Because most traffic aircraft accidents occur within eight kilometres of an airport. If they are flying out over the waters of Botany Bay with 162 tonnes of fuel on board—virtually a mini oil refinery—obviously there is going to be less loss of life. But the government is obsessed, as I have demonstrated with the figures earlier, with achieving these stupid, meaningless targets instead of flying planes over the waters of Botany Bay. There have been a number of incidents at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. Indeed, I have received a reply from the government to my questions on notice that there have been a number of accidents. Fortunately, the three major ones in the last 40 years have all crashed into Botany Bay but, if this long-term operating plan had been operating, they would have come down on homes. What I am putting to those representatives of the government, including Airservices Australia, is that if they continue with this reckless indifference of the safety of ordinary Australians, including those in my electorate, they are going to have to answer personally for a disaster. (Time expired)21:50:0025144Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—I am very pleased to support the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Amendment Bill 2001. Since being elected by the people of Swan, I have spent considerable time dealing with issues concerning the Perth Airport. Members might recall my statements in this House pertaining to the difficulties experienced by my constituents affected by aircraft noise and, more recently, the issue of staffing levels and relocation of services to Melbourne. This bill is aimed at retrospectively validating an aircraft levy worth around $175 million a year collected from jet aircraft operators at Sydney airport, in light of the discovery of a fundamental flaw in administration of the scheme since 1996.The principal legislation—the Aircraft Noise Levy Act 1995—empowers the minister to declare that a qualifying airport; that, is one where nearby buildings are forecast to suffer from noise that exceeds nominated levels and where the Commonwealth is funding a noise amelioration program, can be classified as a leviable airport. This would enable the Commonwealth to charge a levy that must be struck in a way to coincide with the amount expended on the noise amelioration program. This analysis would ensure that there is not an unfair burden placed on one leviable airport over another as outlined in the Bills Digest.Presently this scheme only operates in Sydney, although invalidly, which is the reason for this amendment. In the May budget it was announced that the Commonwealth would fund a noise amelioration program for Adelaide for the purpose of funding the insulation of residences and public buildings in the areas of high aircraft noise surrounding Adelaide Airport. I strongly support the proposal for Adelaide and I will be seeking that Perth be considered as a further leviable airport. I intend to strongly lobby my party and the government to ensure that this occurs. Some members will be familiar with Perth Airport. It is, of course, the central hub of the aviation industry in Perth. It is located only 12 kilometres from the city centre. It is also a considerable component of the total landmass of the electorate of Swan, comprising a site of 2,105 hectares. The communities of South Guildford, Cannington, Queen's Park and Belmont have actively lobbied my office and their local government representatives with respect to the noise problem.The aircraft noise levy, as it operates in Sydney, funds the airport noise amelioration program. According to the Assistant Treasurer, the levy had raised $197 million as of 31 January 2001 and program expenditure has reached $347 million. This has enabled over 3,300 homes and over 80 public buildings to be noise insulated, as outlined in the Digest. This would be of enormous benefit to the constituents of Swan and would assist them to minimise the health impacts of aircraft noise as identified by the House of Representatives select committee in September 1985—conditions such as sleep deprivation, cardiovascular disease and impairments to learning ability for children and adults.There appear to be two requirements before an airport is considered to be appropriate for this legislation. First, it must be viewed as a `qualifying airport'. This involves meeting the technical requirements of the legislation. The second aspect seems to be a political one. It appears, from my observation of the legislation and the way it has been put into practice by the current minister, that the political concerns seem to far outweigh the technical requirements. In order to meet the technical requirements, the airport must be shown to have a significant number of public buildings and residences close to the airport that are directly affected by noise.I believe that Perth meets these requirements as there are approximately 10,000 residents who live along these flight corridors, and a large number of adjoining suburbs such as Belmont that have busy business and commercial areas. Both aspects of the community have loudly expressed their dissatisfaction about the noise issue in general. There have also been a lot of comments about the way in which noise is measured. Currently there is the ANEF rating, which looks at people's perception of noise. It is calculated to an average, which sets certain limits. From discussing this way of calculating the problem and its impact on people in the community, what I have found is that it does not accurately measure its impact on surrounding residents. I take Belmont as an example.There are suburbs in Belmont that are very close to one of the runways which is not used that often. In this area houses are located some 300 metres from the end of the runway. Whilst only two per cent of take-offs and landings occur in this direction, when that does occur the noise level for those people is horrific. Under the current ANEF levels, they are not eligible for any compensation, or even assessment, because it is calculated over a wide period. Therefore, they do not qualify. Certainly, if you are in these people's yards or even in their houses when a large aircraft is either landing or taking off in a strong easterly wind you know that the house shakes, the windows shake and they cannot hear themselves talk or think. The impact is very dramatic. I find it highly unfair that these people will not even be considered for any form of program because they do not qualify under the current arrangements.Another recent example of aircraft noise affecting local residents in the electorate was most clearly demonstrated at the Queen's Park Primary School. Queen's Park would be eligible for consideration because it is at the end of the main runway in Perth. Recently I attended the school early in the morning to do some presentations for an assembly. The assembly was held outside. The young people were getting their awards and, every time an aircraft flew overhead, which was probably every two to three minutes, all activity at the school had to cease. The young people could not hear what was being said. They had no idea what I was saying, which was either a good or a bad thing, depending on which way you look at it. But I can imagine that had they been in their classroom and not at an outdoor assembly they would have had the same problem. The principal told me that this occurs on a regular basis, almost daily. I believe this is totally unacceptable. If we have a mechanism where we can fund a program that provides insulation, double glazing and possibly airconditioning for those classrooms, surely these people deserve that consideration. I have also been approached about the possibility of a school being located close to Canberra Airport. We are very concerned that similar issues could affect these people. When you are dealing with children, obviously it is an extremely important issue and one that should not be ignored. We definitely need to have something that can address the issue. If a levy can provide insulation and other noise amelioration measures we certainly need to implement it.The residents of Queen's Park and other areas have organised a number of events that I have attended. I have supplemented these meetings by continuing to lobby on their behalf, raising the issue in parliament and at a local level by assisting in the information flow, detailing possible action and developing responses. I can report to the House that at the numerous meetings in the community, in excess of 400 people came along to each separate meeting raising their concerns. Those of us that organise public meetings know that, if you are getting 400 people out at night to raise concerns about a particular issue, the issue really affects the wider community and is something that needs to be considered.My office has also received over 13,000 signatures on petitions where people have been concerned about the issue of airport noise. We have also received hundreds of phone calls, faxes and visits by concerned residents. We also arranged a meeting with the minister and local government representatives to discuss the issue when the airport corporation was considering its master plan. The local representatives concerned came from the city of Canning and made a special flight to Canberra so that they could put their case to the government. At the meeting the mayor and the chief executive of the city said, `We really need to consider this whole issue of airport noise and what action will be taken to address this in the future.' They walked away from that meeting very disappointed. At the time they thought that their concerns were being heard and that the minister was going to act. Unfortunately, the minister did nothing and they were extremely disappointed. I can appreciate the frustration they walked away from this place with, given that no action was taken to address their concerns.Another initiative that took place was the establishment of a noise committee at Perth airport as part of the overall program of the master plan. Unfortunately, that committee had no local representation. So, in order to make that happen, we lobbied the Westralia Airports Corporation—and they, not the minister, agreed that local representation should take place. In light of that response, I consider that Perth certainly meets the first aspect of the technical requirement in order to be considered as a qualifying airport for the aircraft noise levy collection. However, it is the second aspect of this technical requirement that my electorate of Swan fails to meet. To be selected by this government is a political decision which, it appears, will not be made for Perth.Let us consider this fact: the Adelaide airport is located in the seat of Hindmarsh, which is held by the Hon. Christine Gallus. Hindmarsh is a marginal Liberal seat and, therefore, one that would lead the government to consider it worthy of classification as a qualifying airport. I find it rather interesting that Hindmarsh will be considered as a qualifying airport on some of the technical issues. Any of us who have flown into Adelaide know that that airport has problems. I am concerned that the selection of airports tends to be made as a political decision to sort out marginal Liberal seats. The electorate of Swan is not a marginal Liberal seat; it is a marginal Labor seat, and it is getting nothing. I believe that the basis of the government's selection needs to change. This is typical pork-barrelling by the government, and the electorate is waiting. The government have now introduced this legislation saying, `Let us deal with this; let us provide Hindmarsh with a few bucks to help sort out its aircraft noise problem.' Why? Because there is a threat that, in the coming election, they are going to lose. So the government says, `We had better throw a few bucks at Hindmarsh to help them out, but we will not worry about the poor people of Swan.' It reminds me a little of the Ryan by-election and the fuel issue where they thought, `Whoa! We have a problem here. We could lose Ryan. What are we going to do? Let us make sure that we provide the people with a 1½c a litre reduction in their excise to help pork-barrel them a bit to try to convince them that they should vote for us.' I believe that this sort of pork-barrelling is unacceptable. Where there is a problem, we need to address it. Certainly Perth has a problem, and we need to address it. A further deterrent for the government will be the political pressure that will be applied by aircraft operators who will be forced to increase fees once they are obliged to pay the levy. The government needs to be strong and show its commitment to the people rather than its obsession with helping big business at the community's expense. The increase in populations around airports in Australia means that the government must take action and consider many airports as qualifying airports—and this should be regardless of the state's governing party or the political persuasion of the sitting member. Perth airport will continue to be a busy entrance to the nation. This can be seen in the latest data from Westralia Airports Corporation. Relevant documentation associated with the master plan in Perth states that, as flight frequency increases, approximately a further 10,000 local residents will be affected in the coming years. We have all read about the new super jumbos which are being considered for construction; in fact, I think Qantas has a number on order. These aircraft will revolutionise the way people are transported within Australia and the world community. One of the problems I have seen with these aircraft is that they need to have a hub from which they can operate. That hub in Australia may in fact become Perth, because from Perth they can fly non-stop direct to Europe and other areas.SU5Vaile, Mark, MPMr Vaile—That might be wishful thinking.84GWilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE—The honourable member opposite suggests that it might be wishful thinking. I do not believe so. I think Perth is the central hub of the world. Certainly, anyone coming to Western Australia will not be disappointed. I will be looking forward to that occurring in the future. But if the airport is upgraded further and Perth does become a major hub for international travellers to and from Australia, as should be the case, then clearly we will have an ongoing problem, and the time to address that ongoing problem is now and not five or 10 years down the track when we start to have even bigger problems than the ones we have already got. The time to act is now. We need to plan for the protection, the prevention of discomfort and the good health of those residents located close to our airports, particularly Perth. We must ensure that local schools and child-care centres are not exposed to the ills that have been well documented to occur as a result of aircraft noise. We must be responsible and ensure that aircraft operators are also responsible for the effects that their industry imposes upon the communities in which they make their profits. Finally, I call on the minister for transport to look specifically at Perth and to take the appropriate action to commence its classification as a qualifying airport for the purposes of this legislation. This is a minister who is more concerned with keeping the mud off his gumboots than caring for ordinary Australians. It is time he started caring for the ordinary Perth folk who need his assistance. I commend the bill to the House and look forward to Perth being included in the program. 22:06:0025148Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I wish to speak in support of the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Amendment Bill 2001. However, I express some astonishment that the bill is necessary. The bill, of course, is necessary because of the incompetence of the current Minister for Transport and Regional Services and his predecessors, who have failed to include Sydney airport in the leviable airport legislation since 30 June 1996. No wonder the government has absolutely no direction on Sydney airport policy when it cannot get simple administration right.For the people of Grayndler, the electorate that I am proud to represent, this is a mixed issue. On the one hand, many people in Grayndler would not want to see compensation and noise amelioration to be necessary; they would rather see the planes simply disappear and Kingsford Smith airport closed. But I understand, and I think a majority of my electorate understand, that Sydney airport has a very important role to play in Australia's economic development and prosperity and for jobs for the people of Sydney, New South Wales and Australia. If that airport is to continue, the people around the airport deserve proper protection and proper compensation. The noise amelioration program was implemented in late 1994 essentially due to what I still hold to be the disastrous and incorrect decision to build the third runway at Kingsford Smith airport. It consisted of the voluntary acquisition of 151 houses and the Coptic church in Railway Road, Sydenham, which are within the 40 ANEF zone. When the noise was at that level, the houses simply shook and were ready to fall down due to the aircraft noise rather than requiring any voluntary decisions. The program also allows for the insulation of houses within the 30 ANEF zone and the insulation of public buildings within the 25 ANEF zone. That was paid for by the levy under the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 1995. The original program included 17 schools, 21 child-care centres, seven nursing homes, 23 churches and two hospitals. The changes which occurred after this mean-spirited government was elected wound back the insulation program. The boundaries for residents were cut back to Stanmore Road in my electorate and some 2,500 people missed out at that time. The boundaries then had to be expanded in May 1999 in the budget when the government considered the Australian noise exposure indicator and the impact that was placing on residents at that time.At that time, the expansion—the difference between the noise exposure indicator and the forecast—was the difference between practice and theory. That is one of the things I want to talk about tonight. The practical impact of aircraft noise on the people in the communities that I represent is much greater than suggested by the theoreticians, the forecasters who sit comfortably in offices in Canberra. The current situation is that, as a result of that expansion, 147 residences were acquired in Sydenham. The government provided some funding for Sydenham Green, an area of open space which was launched by me as the local member; the Mayor of Marrickville, Barry Cotter; and the then minister for transport, the member for Lyne. That was a very good project and I give credit to the member for Lyne for being prepared while he was the minister to come down and visit Sydenham, visit the people in my electorate, on more than one occasion. That is more than his predecessor, John Sharp did—he ranked zero—or the current minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also on zero in terms of visiting the people who are most affected by aircraft noise. The Coptic church in Railway Road has been successfully relocated to Bexley. I was pleased just some three weeks ago to attend the opening ceremony and luncheon held at the Coptic church and the Egyptian community. It is hoped that one level of the former Coptic church—the first in the Southern Hemisphere—will be converted into a museum of Egyptian history, in particular Coptic history, in Sydenham and that the remainder of the facilities will become available to the community to use as a centre for community activities. The insulation of 25 schools has been completed; 28 child-care centres have been completed; and a residential area of some 4,300 residences is now eligible for insulation, of which 3,100 are in my electorate. Unfortunately for the people in my electorate, who have always suffered more than any others with regard to aircraft noise, they were the guinea pigs for this project. Much of the SANIP was new ground. Some 1,100 properties had wool ceiling insulation put in them, which was essentially a fire hazard and needed to be replaced, leading to a blow-out in the costs of the program. Much of the air conditioning, particularly that of companies such as Coral, simply does not work. All it does is lead to increased electricity costs for the residents, with little benefit.Many other residents, due to the fact that bureaucrats have placed lines on maps as to who is affected and who is not, have simply missed out—because they are on the wrong side of the road; some even when they are next to people who do comply with the guidelines for insulation. A practical example is Patricia Campbell, who lives in Tempe in my electorate, less than one kilometre from the runway of Kingsford Smith airport—not from the terminals at Kingsford Smith but from the runway. That is less than 1,000 metres. Given that a runway is four kilometres long, people should understand exactly how small that distance is. Yet this government says that her residence falls outside the contour for noise insulation. Patricia spends her days at home as a full-time carer for her aged mother who needs constant care. She is literally bombarded by aircraft noise from the time she is woken up by the planes to the time that she goes to bed—seven days a week, 12 months of the year. This has brought her to a situation where she has made representations to the minister that she is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. I urge the government to show a bit of compassion with regard to people such as Patricia.Total expenditure on the insulation project is some $346.6 million as at 31 January, of which $196.8 million has been raised. It is my view that if the levy has to be raised under the user-pays principle or if it has to be extended out in its application—this legislation extends it to 30 June 2006—then so be it. If you are going to subject people to this terror of noise, then give them proper compensation.I wish to raise the issue of Sydenham and the small businesses in the community there. There were 151 houses available for acquisition, of which 147 people agreed. There were 17 small businesses along Unwins Bridge Road in Sydenham prior to this decision. There are now four and those four are losing money. If you take away an entire suburb and demolish it, it is not surprising that the local paper shop closes, the corner shop closes, the milk bar closes and the liquor store closes, because there is no-one there to buy the products. These people—good hardworking Australians—many of whom are migrants, mainly of Greek background, who came out in the postwar period, do not get one cent of compensation under this legislation. Most of them live above the shop where they service their community but, because it is a retail outlet, they are not entitled to compensation. SACF and the minister opposite have met these people and I believe were sympathetic to their plight. SACF carried resolutions unanimously. SACF former chairman Joe Hockey supported them, and Brendan Nelson supported them, but there is not one cent of compensation to these small business people.The next issue I wish to raise also applies to the battlers in that Sydenham-St Peters-Tempe area, and that is weatherboard houses. There was $15,000 extra given to insulate weatherboard houses in the 1999 budget on top of the $50,000 which is available to other residents. But you simply cannot properly insulate houses in the above 30 ANEF zone where noise is—if you will excuse the term, Mr Deputy Speaker—bloody loud all day. You cannot insulate weatherboard houses properly; you cannot treat the houses properly. Those people should be subject to a similar scheme which was put and supported by SACF to previous transport ministers whereby the houses would be acquired, people compensated, brick houses or houses that can be insulated built in their place and on-sold. It would be at very little cost to the government but would be a sign of real compassion and social justice. But these people just keep copping it. My electorate of Grayndler is one in which 43.5 per cent of the population were born overseas—the fifth highest rate in the country. The vast majority of these people come from non-English speaking backgrounds, 11 per cent of the electorate do not speak English fluently and nearly half the people in the electorate speak a language other than English at home. Of these dwellings, 41 per cent are rented—the eighth highest rate in Australia, yet my electorate has to cop being told, `They're just inner-city people. They're affluent in the inner city.' I did not get 72 per cent of the vote at the last election because there are a whole lot of millionaires in my electorate. Housing prices in Sydenham, Tempe and Marrickville are still cheaper than most places in Sydney. You have communities and families, first generation from overseas, crammed into inadequate quarters. They are real battlers who deserve the support of the Australian Labor Party and deserve the support of the Australian community. At the same time, this week they cop from the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales comments that you cannot go into Marrickville without being at risk of being shot. So they cop it both ways. On the one hand, they are affluent and we do not have to worry about them; on the other hand, they are the underclass who can be dismissed from the other perspective. The reality is that they are just decent hardworking, working-class Australians.I want to talk about schools. Since the spreading of the noise, there is a very clear case that schools such as Marrickville High School, Dulwich High and Fort Street High—to name just three—deserve insulation. I want to use Fort Street High School as an example because it is the oldest state high school in New South Wales, having been established in 1849. It is on a hill in Petersham, some 50 metres from the 25 ANEF zone. Tavaners Hill Public School, which you could hit with a tennis ball thrown from the grounds of Fort Street High, has been insulated, but Fort Street High gets nothing. Fort Street High is a heritage school. The building was constructed in 1914, and the hall was constructed in 1927. It is not surprising that the noise just filters straight through into that school. Noise measurements have recorded levels above 65 decibels every single day. That is an important figure because it is the figure that was used for schools in the Badgerys Creek EIS. The education of these children is suffering every day. They cannot go through a one-hour lesson without it being interrupted. They cannot study for their HSC without being interrupted—every day! It is not just some days; it is every single day. They deserve proper compensation.If you compare it with Newington College up the road—one of the favoured schools of those opposite—you see that $18.8 million was spent on insulation and airconditioning there. I do not begrudge them that, because they are entitled to insulation. Every student is entitled to learn without their education being prejudiced. But let us be fair dinkum: just because those students are affluent does not mean that they deserve better than those students attending government schools like Marrickville High, Dulwich High, Fort Street High and other schools that are right under the flight path. We need to be consistent on this issue. The principal of Fort Street, Ms Ros Moxham, wrote to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services asking for assistance. She outlined their case—and what was the minister's response? Nothing. He got a staff member to send off a form letter basically saying, `Thanks for your correspondence—bad luck.' It is simply not good enough. Those students will campaign, and I will be with them, as their local member, in order to get justice. I want to conclude my contribution to tonight's debate by speaking about the issue of privatisation. Section 18 of the Airports Bill 1996 clearly states that the sales of Sydney airport and Sydney West airport must be to the same owner, and the government's policy is that it can be done only once the aircraft noise problems of Sydney airport are solved. I would much rather that the problems of Sydney aircraft noise were solved than that we talked about how to compensate for the problems. It is always better to fix the problems than to provide compensation. This government's policy of having a second Sydney airport—make no mistake: there will be a second Sydney airport—is that it should be in Bankstown. So we will have one of these two airports in the inner west of Sydney and one in Bankstown, in the south-west of Sydney—the first and second most densely populated areas in Australia, not just in Sydney. It is an absolutely outrageous, obscene abuse of the government's own commitments and a betrayal of its responsibilities as a government to represent all Australians. The Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Amendment Bill 2001 is necessary because of the government's incompetence in failing to fix the noise problem at Sydney airport, and it is consistent with its incompetent policy with regard to Sydney airport in general. (Time expired)22:26:0025151Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—I join the member for Grayndler and, previously, the members for Watson and for Wills in condemning this government's administrative failure—not the administrative failure of the federal government bureaucracy but the administrative failure of this government yet again. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have seen the government's administrative failures time and again, as I have. But tonight we face, in the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Amendment Bill 2001, an attempt to retrospectively legislate for something that the government did not do correctly in 1996. So far, about $175 million has been garnered from passengers of jet aircraft at Sydney airport paying the aircraft noise levy. Up until now, Sydney airport was the only airport where that noise levy operated. However, the government has determined that there should be a noise levy collection in a second airport, Adelaide airport. As you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker, aircraft of the class of 737s are to be placed into Bankstown airport as a result of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and their cabinet determining in the middle of December that Bankstown airport should become the effective fourth runway, the replacement east-west runway for Kingsford Smith airport, and that there should be another leviable airport—that is, Bankstown. I, as the member for Blaxland, represent the people of Bankstown, and I represent the 6,000 to 10,000 local people who turned up on Sunday, 11 February at the trotting grounds at Bankstown to protest against the government's decision to belt the daylights out of the people of Bankstown by turning their airport into an airport for jets. Whether it be purely as a domestic jet airport or as an international jet airport, this is a crazy decision, a quite insane decision by this government. They have already raised $175 million of a total of about $374 million that is projected to be needed in relation to Sydney airport. Instead of making a sensible decision about a second airport for Sydney, they are determined to make the people of Bankstown suffer for their great sins in voting Labor since 1949, since the electorate of Blaxland was incorporated, and prior to that. In this great year of the Centenary of Federation, it is fitting to remember that, since 1901, the people of Bankstown have voted Labor, L-a-b-o-r—that is, for one century. Because of that, this government has determined to belt the daylights out of them by turning Bankstown into Sydney's second airport. They therefore will have to bring another bill into this House to determine that Bankstown is a leviable airport. I will fight the expansion of Bankstown airport and its extension into areas beyond those of a general aviation airport. It is a deliberate act to change the current nature of the airport and to change it from what it has been since the 1940s into the effective east-west runway of Kingsford Smith airport. This is a crazy, stupid, dumb, ridiculous decision by a government that should know better. Debate interrupted. Adjournment2515210000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.2515222:30:0025152Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—Mr Speaker, as I am sure you are aware, this is the week in which we celebrate International Women's Day. I rise tonight to draw the attention of honourable members to a major event in my electorate on Friday night on the theme of celebrating the contribution of women in the community—that is, the opening of an art exhibition entitled The Women of Wyndham. It has been my very great honour to be invited to open that art exhibition at our Werribee South Art Gallery. The artist is a local woman called Kathy Vafiadis, a well-known local identity who has contributed to the community through her art and community activism. She works in a variety of mediums, including paint, pastel, watercolour and on a variety of three-dimensional surfaces, and is particularly interested in the image of the female as an icon. It is following that particular interest that she has put together this art exhibition which includes 15 portraits of women of Wyndham. As the artist is entitled to, Kathy has included her own self-portrait. Among that number—apart from Kathy, a very celebrated local artist—are women community leaders in the city of Wyndham. I am glad to be included as the local federal member on that list. It also includes Pat Goodwin, who was the first female mayor of our city; Karen Roberts, who is currently the only female councillor in the City of Wyndham; and Mary Guilette, the current state Labor representative, who is one of my very great friends and a very great colleague. She will shortly be celebrating her marriage on 17 March—St Patrick's Day, a very important date—and I wish her my best for that.Apart from local women leaders, this art exhibition celebrates the contribution of a number of community activists and local identities. One of them is Jan Goats. Jan had the vision and the passion to launch a brilliant idea in our city, and that was its quality community plan. Jan is celebrated for that community leadership. One of the portraits is of Dawn Hosking. Dawn typifies the spirit that drives our volunteers. She works hard for the Uniting Church and its charities as well as the Werribee scout movement. She is a wonderful mother and wife and contributor to our community. Another portrait is of Rosemary Brown. She gave us our local neighbourhood centre, the Cottage, which is a very important backbone to community life in the city of Wyndham. Her work is celebrated. Among the local identities celebrated is Terri Bracks. Terri's connection with the city of Wyndham is in part as an electorate officer in my electorate office and for a long period of time in the electorate office of the very Hon. Barry Jones before me. She is better known these days as the wife of our Premier and Terri's contribution to the Wyndham community is celebrated through her portrait.There is a portrait of Heather Marcus, who has for a long time been one of our local traders. She has traded for a very long time on Watton Street, Werribee as a dress shop and each and every year puts a tremendous amount of effort into our local festival, Weerama, most particularly its fashion show. Another portrait is of our very prominent local activist Connie Menegazzo. Connie is a resident at Werribee South and was very prominent in the campaign against the toxic dump which the Jeff Kennett government sought to impose on our community. Joanne Ryan, who is a local teacher, a playwright and also a hero of the toxic dump campaign, is celebrated. Joanne is a very great personal friend of mine and I look forward to seeing her portrait.These portraits include two others: Sue Anderson, another wonderful artist, and Clare Bannantyne, who is a designer, architect, glass artist, school teacher, horsewoman, circus performer, boat builder, gallery owner, dictionary lover, grandmother, living treasure and the adopted sister of the artist, Kathy Vafiadis. It will be my very great pleasure to attend and launch this very important art exhibition on Friday night. It is very important that we note it in this place tonight. 2515322:35:0025153Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—I have recently received information of what apparently is a secret or unpublished 1998 study on the quality management of methadone maintenance treatment programs in New South Wales. The report states that to ensure the desired health and economic benefits of methadone maintenance treatment can be achieved, the program must be capable of demonstrating best practice conditions necessary to obtain these benefits. It says that the priority aim must be to develop an implementation-ready, quality management system. This system must ensure that the direct cost of methadone treatment will be significantly offset by the social, crime and health costs to the community of not providing MMT services. I was appalled to read that the study went on to identify seven critical failure points. They were: (1) the organisation and administration of the program, (2) compliance with stated policies and guidelines, (3) approval of prescribers, (4) the roles and responsibilities of clinics and retail pharmacies, (5) the performance of service providers, (6) education and training of service providers and (7) liaison with communities. To remedy the situation, the report recommended, firstly, that a board with up to nine members and a full-time secretariat of four should be established to take responsibility for the management of the quality of methadone maintenance treatment. It said that the overall function of the board should be to act as an external body for the quality of services delivered by all MMT service providers.Recommendation 9 called for the licensing of public and private MMT clinics by the board on a triennial basis. The issuing of a licence to a clinic should specify the client volume limits for each clinic. Licences should be issued for a three-year period, but non-accredited clinics should be licensed for a period of one year only. I understand that the New South Wales government's response has been to appoint one internal quality assurance officer. This is hardly an independent board supported by a secretariat.I understand that methadone maintenance treatment has been around in Australia for about 15 years, and that this question of quality assurance was raised early. Australia ranks second highest in the world both in percentage of the population on methadone and the strength of dose per person. It appears that New South Wales has the highest rate of methadone syrup use in the world. In about 1988 methadone programs and needle and syringe programs were unleashed into Australia big time. They were accompanied by no balanced scientific randomised control study. In its place, success has been judged by how many addicts stay on the treatment, and how long, and the number of needles and syringes distributed. The criterion is the more, and longer, the better. To my knowledge, and that of many other people with detailed knowledge of the matter, there has been no scientific study of the use of this drug and the outcome in terms of rehabilitation. This raises questions about the stewardship of the New South Wales health department. I believe it has been studiously avoided because the outcomes do not justify the inputs, and because there have grown too many vested interests associated with the methadone maintenance treatment.The New South Wales records are so bad that even deaths on the program are not reported. In 1992, when `takeaways' were first provided, the risk of death through diversion was recognised and, because of that, so was the need to monitor the policy. However, virtually no monitoring was done. It is sad, but I believe it is the case that there are many clear breaches of the rules by pharmacists, and the public interest will not be served until proper independent quality assurance and monitoring are put in place. With the advent of naltrexone based rehabilitation programs and the high success rates achieved, and the pending use of buprenorphine, judging the methadone maintenance treatment programs by the numbers and the length of time an addict stays on them is obsolete. In fact, it is stupid. There needs to be accurate monitoring of death rates and abstinence rates, and the effects of these programs on the children of patients. I will be writing to the Minister for Health and Aged Care on this matter so that the government may raise these matters with the New South Wales government.2515422:40:0025154Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—Tonight I want to congratulate the people and groups who received awards in my electorate of Canning on Australia Day. The Citizen of the Year for the shire of Murray was Mary Cleghorn. Mary is the community and child health nurse for the Peel region but is known to the vast majority of the community as `Mary the Clinic Sister'. She has worked in this region for the past 25 years and has worked tirelessly, with a dedication rarely seen these days. The Community Event of the Year Award this year went to the Dandalup and Districts Community Association for its holding of a very successful event to celebrate 150 years of settlement for the residents and ex-residents of the North Dandalup district. It was certainly a very enjoyable day.In Waroona, the Young Citizen of the Year was Megan Brown. Megan was recognised for her contributions to the community. She is a straight-A student who was dux of her school in 2000. Five people in Waroona were recognised for their contributions to the community. These were Glad Lane, Lynda Leroy, Charles Maffescioni, Joan Scott and Joan Walsh. The achievements of these people give great hope for the future of our community.In the shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale, the Citizen of the Year was Jill Van Der Sanden. Jill is an active member of the Serpentine Parents and Citizens. She joined the PCYC in 1989 and has worked diligently ever since with that group. The Community Event of the Year Award this year was won by the Walking Trails Committee of Jarrahdale Heritage Society. The work of Sheila Twine and her walking group under the Jarrahdale Heritage Society has put the shire on the map as a walk trail destination, and it is one I would recommend to all members if they are looking for an enjoyable time in Western Australia.In the city of Armadale, Greg Kelly was made Citizen of the Year. Greg is head of the Department of Performing Arts at Armadale Senior High School. He is also president of the Kelmscott Tennis Club and secretary of the Armadale Golf Club. He has had a long association with the area and has worked tirelessly over this time. The Young Citizen of the Year Award was presented to Melissa Northcott. Melissa has cerebral palsy and has vision in only one eye, but this has not prevented her from being an active member of the community. She raises funds for the MS Society, Red Cross, Telethon and the Cerebral Palsy Association and has been actively involved in the Girl Guides, the Red Cross, Police and Citizens and St John Ambulance. I know that when Mr Beazley visited my electorate earlier this year Melissa was responsible for welcoming us to her school. She did a superb job and was a credit to that school. The Community Event/Organisation of the Year Award went to the Heritage Country Tourism Association. The tourism centre was opened in 1993 and since then has made an outstanding contribution to tourism in our district. They won the Golden 1 award for a record fifth time last year. The City of Armadale High Achievers Award was won by Julie Ferns Pheasant in recognition of her achievement in winning two gold medals at the Abilympics in Prague. Certificates of appreciation for outstanding contribution to the community through volunteering were awarded to Margaret Bettenay, Joan Lewington and Mavis Gamble. A certificate of appreciation for his ongoing contribution to local radio was presented to Royceton Hardy. A certificate for outstanding personal achievement was won by Luke Ellis, who started flying at 10 years of age and was recently accepted for an Ansett scholarship in aviation studies at Melville Senior High School. The Armadale shopping centre was awarded a certificate of appreciation for its willingness to participate in and contribute to the life of the city of Armadale. The Environmental Contribution of the Year Award was won by the Friends of Bob Blackburn Flora Reserve. In Gosnells, four young women received the Duke of Edinburgh Award. Laura Blackman, Kylie Watson, Katie Hope and Jenny Umfahrer are to be congratulated for their efforts. The Citizen of the Year Award was awarded to Clinton Phillips. Clinton coordinates the recreation network's leisure buddy program, which looks at recreation opportunities, counselling, information and support for people with disabilities. The Young Citizen of the Year was Amit Khaira. Amit is involved with the Thornlie Church of Christ's Youth Ministry. He coordinates the Brotherhood for Life Skate Ministry, which conducts regular sessions for skateboarders, rollerbladers and bike riders. The Thornlie Church of Christ was awarded the Community Service of the Year award for their work with young people in the community. Last but by no means least, the winner of the Year 2000 Constable Peter Ball Memorial Youth Award was won by the Brotherhood for Life Skate Ministry. They have made an outstanding contribution to crime prevention and overcoming antisocial behaviour. All of these people should be proud of the great contribution they have made to the quality of community life in our area.2515522:45:0025155Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—The devastating news that parts of Europe, in particular the United Kingdom, have been infected with the highly contagious foot and mouth disease again highlights the importance of tough quarantine laws in Australia. Foot and mouth disease would have an equally devastating impact on Australia's livestock industry and could potentially cost up to 25,000 jobs. Foot and mouth affects cattle, pigs, sheep and goats and although in adult livestock it is not usually fatal it causes serious production losses and major constraints to trade in any exporting nation unfortunate enough to be exposed. As an island continent, we are indeed in a better position than many countries, and our quarantine system is the envy of the world. However, we cannot underestimate the ease with which this highly contagious disease could very quickly gain a foothold in this country.I understand the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service has temporarily suspended imports of all products from the UK that could constitute a risk of introducing the disease, including dairy products and uncanned meat. Travellers from the UK will be targeted for inspection at airports and more luggage will be X-rayed. I have every confidence that AQIS has employed stringent biosecurity measures and border controls in response to this latest outbreak. What I would like to raise is the fact that there are always unscrupulous people willing to run the risk of breaking our quarantine laws. Where there is a will, they will try. I believe penalties for breaking these laws should be increased significantly in order to act as a more effective deterrent. They are currently hopelessly inadequate. People willing to break quarantine laws often do so in order to gain financial benefit. Imposing a fine like $400 with no imprisonment is hardly likely to deter these people. A person was fined $400 for importing green apple snails through the Melbourne International Mail Exchange in a package labelled as video cassettes. These snails are considered a delicacy in Europe but are a serious pest to agriculture, particularly in my state of Western Australia. AQIS's own web site admits that if the snails had not been discovered, they could have caused serious problems for Australia. This person was fined a mere $400.Another case saw an aquarium owner import 23 exotic fish into Australia that would have caused serious quarantine and environmental risks to the country. The fish, which came from the Amazon rainforest, can fetch around $450 on the black market. The aquarium owner was found guilty and fined $5,000. If he had not been caught, he would have made more than $10,000 through selling the fish, and they are just the ones that were intercepted. I believe we should treat people who intentionally break quarantine laws with the same level of seriousness that we treat drug smugglers. Government members—Hear! Hear!84FWasher, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER—We recognise that harsh penalties for importers of illicit drugs are warranted because, first, they stand to gain large sums of money if successful and, second, because of the significant damage illicit drugs do to our community. Breaking quarantine laws also has these two considerations. Smugglers often stand to make a fortune if they are not intercepted, while damage to many of our exporting industries and the environment in general could be huge. An outbreak of foot and mouth disease here could cost us $6 billion, and that affects us all. I look forward to helping in the push to make our quarantine laws have more bite and better deter illegal imports and to seeing this issue treated with the level of gravity that it deserves.2515622:50:0025156O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—I would like to lodge a strong protest in this parliament tonight about the way the new dairy assistance scheme has worked out, particularly as it relates to farmers and shoppers. This new milk levy being paid by shoppers, which was meant to help farmers, is now going to finish up in the hands of the banks and the tax office. It is clear that the price now paid by people shopping in supermarkets for milk carries an 11c levy. That levy has been put in place by the Howard government, supposedly to assist dairy farmers whose businesses have been hit by the deregulation of the dairy industry. I am sure people in towns like Kyneton, Woodend, Gisborne, Sunbury, Deer Park, Melton and Bacchus Marsh in my electorate have no idea that this levy has been imposed on milk prices. It is a direct charge on consumers. It was supposed to go to farmers who are in trouble because they now receive much less for their milk at the farm gate.That is only the tip of the iceberg. We now find the Howard government has decided these compensation grants to farmers will be counted as income and farmers will have to pay tax on it. That means that 3c of that 11c levy is going from consumers to the tax office. What a rip-off! What should have been a $1.2 billion package is now a $1.6 billion package because $400 million is being transferred to the tax office. What is also making me angry is that many of these farmers who are in trouble are being forced by their banks to hand over their compensation grants to either reduce their overdraft or pay out their mortgage. Again, this is totally unfair to consumers. The milk prices have been loaded up to provide grants which in the end go straight back to the government and the banks—the very same banks that have lifted charges, reduced services and cut jobs in country towns.I am calling on the Prime Minister to review this whole scheme. I think some of our people in my electorate would accept some of the price of milk going to help out farmers who have been squeezed out of business by changes in the industry. I am not complaining about that. In the past, in my territory, we have had tariffs and grants to help industries—textiles, motor vehicles and manufacturing—when they were opened up to more competition. But it is a totally different matter when consumers' money is going straight to the government coffers via the Taxation Office and to the banks. Shoppers should not be loaded with this. The GST is one thing; this is an entirely different matter. Farmers and consumers are on the wrong side of this equation. Farmers, who are now receiving much less at the farm gate—they were always going to be in that situation—and consumers, who are now paying an 11c levy, have both been suckered—and not just suckered in for a year or so but suckered for the next eight years. That is how long this plan is going to be in action.I have heard some members of this House say that they are happy for their consumers because, in some cases, milk prices have gone down. They think that is fine. That may be so, but I say to them that those prices should be lower since this levy should never have been 11c but only 8c because the government has chosen to surreptitiously take its tax take out of it and, of course, the banks are in there taking their share. I repeat my call that the Prime Minister be called in—that the members of the National Party and the country members of the Liberal Party get to the Prime Minister right now—to make sure (a) that the tax is dropped and (b) that the farmers get the levy and the consumers get a decent deal. (Time expired)2515722:55:0025157Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise tonight to extend my remarks from earlier in the week about the lack of understanding on behalf of some of the civic leaders in the areas I represent about the efforts the federal government is taking to tackle the serious concern of drugs in our community. I might start by referring to an information circular being made available by the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia. It says:The Federal Government has over the last three years shown a strong commitment to reducing illicit drug related harm by putting more than $500 million into the National Illicit Drug Strategy.The report goes on to say:No previous government has made such a strong commitment to this issue.That is the context within which I will briefly remind people in my community, particularly the Mayor of the City of Frankston, about some of the measures that have benefited our community. I spoke earlier in the week about some very localised examples of how some of that $500 million is finding its way into our local community and supporting the work of some of the community organisations. Let me just outline where that $500 million is being invested. There are $57 million over four years going to more than 130 non-government treatment programs across Australia for the establishment of new, or the expansion of existing, treatment facilities and services for illicit drug users. Almost $6 million has been allocated to more than 80 projects across the nation to undertake community based prevention initiatives. $7.5 million has been allocated for a range of projects to gather new evidence on and insights into how best to prevent and treat illicit drug problems. They are evaluating some of the pharmacotherapy treatment options—naltrexone, methadone and the like—and also some of the therapeutic communities, an idea that I am particularly interested in where we seek not only to have the person withdrawn from the illicit drug use they have but to have some rehabilitation programs put in place to help develop the life skills and the support mechanisms that that individual needs to cope with modern life, and also to create some new pathways for those people for whom substance abuse is a solution to some problems they have. Unless we tackle the causal issues of those problems in their lives, we get into this revolving door of detoxification.That leads me to another particular area of concern to me and the local community. In the south-eastern metropolitan area of Melbourne, where I represent the good folk of Dunkley, it is extraordinarily difficult to get into a rehabilitation and detoxification program. We have very few programs available and very few beds available in hospitals in the region—it is like winning Lotto if you can get access to them. We also have a number of home based services. As helpful as those things are, where the program response seems to be deficient is in connecting those detoxification services with rehabilitation programs to tackle those causal factors that I mentioned before and to develop some life skills and some coping mechanisms within the individual so that, once they have gone successfully through a detoxification program, we have the best possible prospect of not having them return to illicit drugs. I am tired of hearing stories about families in my community where mums have to sit in park chairs in Springvale buying drugs for their loved ones because they are climbing the wall at home, unable to get into a detoxification and rehabilitation program. It is unacceptable that families in my community have to send their young kids—decent kids, good people who have perhaps just lost their way or made one mistake and been hooked on these horrible things that are afflicting our nation and nations around the world—to as far away as Mount Gambier and Canberra to get access to rehabilitation programs. It is just ridiculous. We need to look at the opportunity that exists to draw from that $500 million that is available to try to support the detoxification facilities in my area with proper rehabilitation services available as and when needed. My final comment relates to the availability of free needles and syringes for people with diabetes. Why is it that the good folk of the ACT, New South Wales and Queensland can get access to free syringes when the good folk of Melbourne cannot? The reason is simple: the state government of Victoria has not met the co-payment cost—which is being met by the other states—which is the amount remaining after the Commonwealth program, the National Diabetic Services Scheme, which already subsidises the cost of insulin syringes, needles for pen injector devices and diagnostic agents for people with disabilities. There is a co-payment, and that co-payment is met by the ACT, New South Wales and Queensland governments to provide assistance to people with diabetes in those states. I am calling on the Victorian government to match the initiatives and the sensible thought that has been provided in these other jurisdictions and give people that suffer from diabetes in Victoria the support that is available to diabetes sufferers in other states. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:0025158House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices25158The following notices were given:QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous to move:That this House:(1) expresses its concern over the degrading conditions forced on humanitarian asylum-seekers in Australia's refugee detention centres;(2) recognises the criticisms made by the Commonwealth Ombudsman in his recent investigation into the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs' Immigration Detention Centres, including a statement that “those detained against their will are entitled to expect that there will be a reasonable standard of care provided for them in terms of accommodation, facilities, security, health, welfare and protection from harm; as well as reasonable timeliness of application and review processes”;(3) calls on the Government to immediately implement the recommendations of the Ombudsman in his `Investigation into The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs' Immigration Detention Centres', namely recommendations 1 through 9.(4) calls on the Government to establish more humane alternative measures to mandatory detention of asylum-seekers, including working with ethnic communities and other welfare organisations willing to care for refugees in a much more humanitarian manner.EM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr Stone to present a bill for an act to amend the Crimes Act 1914 to facilitate the determination of the age of persons suspected of committing, or charged with, Commonwealth offences, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to elections and referendums, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported: Remediation of Defence Land at Neutral Bay, NSW.2001-03-06—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 4.30 p.m.Bills25159R1193BillsR1191BillsR1192Bills25159Debate resumed from 5 March, 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 the debate is resumed on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2000-01, I remind the Main Committee that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this bill, the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2000-01 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2000-01. 16:31:0025159Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—I rise today to speak on a number of matters of government appropriation covered by Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2000-2001 and cognate bills on which I feel, as you might expect, that the opposition would perhaps do a better job. Let me begin with the business activity statement. Last Friday, in my electorate, I witnessed one of the fundamental reasons why the coalition deserves to lose the next federal election resoundingly. I saw the total disillusionment and disenfranchisement of a group which the coalition thought it had as its core constituency—small- and medium-size businesses.Last Friday, the member for Wills, the member for Gellibrand and I held an inquiry into the business activity statement in my electorate in the St Kilda town hall—now called the Port Phillip town hall; I am a bit old fashioned and cannot adjust to these things. A considerable number of business owners willingly offered their time to voice their frustration with what they considered to be a huge waste of resources for their businesses—the BAS statement. It was telling that the inquiry occurred after the Treasurer's superficial backflip last week when he declared that businesses with a turnover of less than $2 million a year need submit the BAS only once every 12 months. These businesspeople were, without exception, extremely cynical. They feel strongly that those opposite have not represented their interests and they are unwilling to trust them further. They know that the coalition government's backflip does not address two fundamental problems of the BAS paperwork war. Businesses that made submissions were diverse. Many had previously trusted the government at its word. Those businesses ranged from a sole practitioner in what you might call a microenterprise to a medium-size company with an $80 million turnover. Despite this diversity, there were clear common themes. The first one was a palpable frustration with the sheer amount of time wasted in preparing the BAS statement. The coalition hopes to contain this angst by the cynical backflip of the Treasurer. However, many businesses commented that they still need to keep the same detailed level of records throughout the year. This has not changed. This is not a net reduction in paperwork. The worst thing for the coalition is that businesses understand precisely this: they still have the same amount of paperwork to do. The coalition's ploy will backfire. Businesses no longer trust this government. The time demands of the BAS compliance impact directly on the efficiency of small and medium businesses. One manager indicated that the time spent on keeping accounts had increased by 60 per cent as a result of the BAS. She commented that this will not change—her record keeping still needs to be as detailed for her once-a-year submission. That submission is now once a year only as a result of pressure from the opposition. As the Leader of the Opposition said, this so-called policy lazy opposition has to keep enunciating its policies as quickly as possible so the government can grab them. One witness voiced great frustration at the level of detail which she must keep in order to comply with the BAS requirements. She said, `It is simply not good business practice to examine every transaction to this extent.' This was from an accountant at a medium-size business. Her family established the business from nothing. She knows good business practice. Another woman, who is traditionally a swinging voter from small business, declared that she would never vote Liberal again. She stated that the time taken to prepare the BAS statement `takes away from the efficiency of my business'. Since the introduction of the BAS she now has to spend hours every month filling out the statement. That is time that could be spent creating and evolving a profitable enterprise. How is that helping Australia?She stated that her business had always been profitable. She knows her business and how to make money. She objects to being told condescendingly by the coalition that now she has good financial records. She stated, `Okay, so now I have good records, but that is not improving my business. In fact, it has decreased.' The BAS statement is taking away valuable management time from small- and medium-sized enterprises throughout Australia. How does this help our economic efficiency? In my view, this is just a scheme dreamed up by Treasury bureaucrats who have no real understanding of how things work out there in the business world. It is also worth noting that these business owners and managers have no objection to paying their fair share of tax. They object to the extraordinary inefficiency of the system that this Howard government, and particularly the Treasurer, foisted on them. Clearly, this also costs businesses money internally, with professional salaries affecting the bottom line of all businesses. This is one of the matters that particularly came out of the inquiry. The complexity of the BAS statement also requires businesses to spend vastly increased amounts on external professional fees. One medium-sized business declared that their professional accounting fees had increased sixfold since the introduction of the BAS statement. Despite the coalition government's belated changes, this company accountant still anticipates that she will need to employ a full-time internal accountant for the first time. This will add an appreciable salary burden to the firm—a burden they never had under Labor.The ongoing financial expense of professional fees will also impact on every Australian business for as long as the BAS statement and compliance regime remain in place. The Prime Minister and his Treasurer have given no indication that they will examine this. What they have done, in my view, is reprehensible. They have simply delayed the next BAS statement for those businesses with a turnover of less than $2 million until after the federal election is due. In my view, Australian businesses simply will not be satisfied by the backflip undertaken by the Treasurer in recent days. They understand that the amount of paperwork is exactly the same as before, that this huge amount of compliance is causing a dreadful problem as far as they are concerned and that it is absolutely not helping. They resent `smart alec' comments from the ATO or the Treasury that this will help them plan and have much better financial records. Many businesses at the micro level in particular do not need this level of detailed record keeping. Without their being slack about their accounts or not complying with tax, this business activity statement is an understandable nightmare for them. I want to turn my attention away from the iniquities of the business activity statement. I believe the government will hear more about this matter following Mr Thomson's excellent inquiry. This is going to roll on throughout Australia. Believe me, small business has many ideas about how the statement and compliance can be changed in a way that will be more efficient and that will help Australian small business.Let me turn to the government's drugs strategy—the so-called National Illicit Drugs Strategy. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can tell you that, two years after Mr Howard's mega-announcement of extra funds for this area, the drugs strategy is not working on the ground. In my electorate we have a very bad area of illicit drug use. St Kilda is well known for it. The price of a cap of heroin has increased from $10 or $20 to $80. The angst on the streets as a result of this is palpable. It is all very well for money to be spent on extra policing. But if this policing simply moves the problem from the inner city of Melbourne or Footscray to my electorate, this is really of no net benefit to the community or, indeed, to the people who are the victims of illicit drugs. It is basically a health problem which the Australian community should be focusing on in terms of what might get these people off these kinds of things rather than moving them around from place to place. One of the things that I regret in particular is that it seems that all of the money for treatment and community partnerships in the National Illicit Drugs Strategy has been fully expended. Of course, it is good that various schemes for rehabilitation and for community partnerships are being taken up. It just shows the desperate need that exists in this area that this has already been taken up. Perhaps there should have been more emphasis in the drug strategy on the government spending money in that particular area. In my electorate we have organisations that are desperate to receive some government assistance. I think, in particular, of one very devoted community worker, a former well-known professional boxer, Henry Nissen, who works for the Emerald Hill Mission. He is out every night feeding people whose drug habit is so bad that they have no money for food. He is out every night with young people trying to encourage them to participate in other activities such as sports that might get them away from their drug habit. His organisation, the Emerald Hill Mission, funds his activities entirely out of their own budget. They have not been able to secure funding from the community partnerships section of the National Illicit Drug Strategy. Indeed in my electorate, which is probably one of the most heavily drug-dependent electorates in Australia, where the problem of illicit drugs is very serious, as far as I am aware we have received only one community partnership grant—and, believe me, that is not due to the inactivity of the local member. As soon as I became aware of the community partnerships section of the National Illicit Drug Strategy, every social welfare organisation in my electorate received a copy of the application form and encouragement from me to participate. But we have received, at this stage, only one grant. I believe that our state Labor government, along with one of the important local municipalities, the Port Phillip Council, has allocated some moneys for a special strategy in our area. The need for that is more than apparent when one looks at the television and sees the massive upsurge in street prostitution and drug sales. This is not a criticism of the people who are engaging in prostitution to feed their own drug habits or indeed of people generally who are hooked on illicit drugs; this is simply a reflection of the fact that there are not enough programs. There remains a national crisis, and we need to do more to help organisations like the Emerald Hill Mission to help people like Henry Nissen. We recently had another very worthy organisation, the Mirabel Foundation, move into the electorate. JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—That is an excellent foundation.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBY—The member opposite realises that they do a fantastic job in helping the children of people who are hooked on illicit drugs, caring for them if they are orphaned or if they are abandoned. Again, we need to raise more government funds, together with funds from private enterprise, to provide the circumstances for looking after the children abandoned in such tragic circumstances. I am full of praise for all of the people who work voluntarily to raise money for Mirabel and for the people who work in Mirabel. But I do not consider it only their responsibility; I think the federal government should be involved as well.I might say one other thing about the government's National Illicit Drug Strategy that I find particularly disappointing. Members here may not realise that some $39 million was allocated for an education program that was to go along with this National Illicit Drug Strategy. That remains largely unspent after two years. I believe one of the blockages was in the Prime Minister's office, where the advertising program that was to be presented was considered not in sound accord with the ideological views of the Prime Minister's office. The crisis on our streets all around Australia is so serious that it seems to me a great shame that two years have been wasted in preparing an advertising campaign on this and an even greater shame, as I am sure the member for Fowler will agree, that this vast amount of advertising funding is to be spent now in a pre-election atmosphere.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—Definitely.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBY—I turn briefly to Aboriginal affairs. Last week we had the regrettable circumstance where a very important Aboriginal elder and respected leader, Lowitja O'Donohue, was characterised by a major newspaper in this country as having made a major revelation about her status: that she was removed rather than stolen. I found this revelation rather less than astounding. Firstly, whether Ms O'Donohue was removed or stolen is really just a semantic difference; and, secondly, her mother—as has been described in many articles since—waited many years to get her back and, through a chance meeting with relatives, they had their only, as I understand it, tragic reunion. This was as a result of her uncle and aunt spotting her outside a supermarket many years later, when she returned.The tragedy of so many of our indigenous Australians being taken away from their parents—sometimes, I understand, with good intent, but nonetheless forcibly—is something that I believe really needs to be addressed. However, it does not need to be addressed in terms of what this government did in Darwin during the Gunner-Cubillo case. In an answer to a question, the Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Mr Ruddock, explained that the federal government had spent $8.5 million on barristers and solicitors fees in fighting two poor Aboriginal people in Darwin to prevent them from getting compensation for being members of the stolen generation. Our federal government, with taxpayers' money, spent a further $770,000 on private detective fees to try to show that these two Aboriginal people—who had been physically and sexually assaulted while they were in the care of the government in the Northern Territory—were liars. This is a shameful misuse of government money. The government's `amen corner', as I call it—the Institute for Public Affairs and Quadrant magazine, and all of the other people who think, as the Prime Minister does, that the difference between the words `stolen' and `removed' is highly significant—may think that this is a good expenditure of public moneys. I do not, and I do not believe the Australian people do. It astounded me that, after this semantic difference in Ms O'Donohue's case was established, the Prime Minister regarded this as highly significant. In the wake of what has happened in Western Australia and Queensland I would have thought that he would have got the message. Part of the same message is presented by all of the people who walked across the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the 50,000 people who marched in Brisbane, the 30,000 people who marched in Hobart and the 300,000 people who marched through my electorate on this issue. I cannot understand the focus of the Prime Minister's views on these issues. I believe very sincerely that, with the election of the opposition to government, we would say sorry to the Aboriginal people officially, as a government. We would have an entirely different attitude to this important area of our national consciousness: the treatment of our own indigenous people. I believe that expenditure of public moneys to the extent that they were spent on fighting this case in Darwin would not take place again.I conclude by turning to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in relation to which I noticed a curious little occurrence the other day. I note that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been described in glossy weekend newspapers as having had something of a resurrection, and I understand that he would like to project that view. I have noted also the very curious appearance of a former Minister for Trade, the member for Farrer, at a cocktail party in Beijing, where he pre-empted the right of the Australian Olympic Committee to announce its attitude to Beijing as the site for the Olympics in 2008.I find the member for Farrer's pre-emptive announcements very curious, especially in the light of the three reports that have been published recently, which any serious government should have examined before it announced what Australia's attitude would be. First of all there is the report of Freedom House, a very well-known civil rights organisation, on the continuing abuse of human rights and civil rights in China. The second, just announced in the last few days, was Amnesty's report, which is causing many other governments in the world to at least take this into account before they make their decision. Finally, there is the official report of the State Department of our great and powerful ally, the United States, on human rights in China, which I notice the Chinese government has reacted to with great anger. I am not saying that the Australian government should have this attitude or that attitude to Australia participating in the Beijing Olympics in 2008, but we should take these reports into account, at least, and Australia's attitude should not be announced by a former trade minister. (Time expired)16:51:0025164Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I rise to speak to the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2000-2001, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2000-2001 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2000-2001. A few years ago Paul Keating, the then Treasurer, made the suggestion that even the pet shop parrot was speaking the words `micro-economic reform'. It seems today that the pet shop parrot has learned some new words, and those words are `deregulation', `competition' and `globalisation'. I do not pretend to be an expert in the field of economics, but I think I know a bit more than a pet shop parrot does and a lot more than some of the people who are running around this country screeching those words do. As it happens, I learned about deregulation, competition and globalisation in a shop—not a pet shop but the local convenience shop. When my children were younger, in between playgroup and the household chores, my daily routine included a visit to the local corner shop to buy milk and bread and other odds and ends. There each day I would meet the friendly neighbourhood shopkeeper, a nice chappie but with one terrible flaw: he was a dyed-in-the-wool Lib, and he could not resist the temptation to try to convert the local mums to his way of thinking. So every time I walked into the shop I would cop an earful of his latest line of what was wrong with this country.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—You should've listened.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN—He was listening, but to the wrong people. He kept a radio behind the counter, and it was always tuned to—wait for it—John Laws and Alan Jones, and he would quote them as if they were prophets. Most of the other mums would nod politely when he spoke. Then, when they got outside the shop, they would shake their heads and call him a silly old—excuse me, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl—bugger. But, as a person who had worked with trade unions and Labor MPs, I could not help myself and I always took the bait. I usually gave as good as I got in defence of working people and the Labor cause. In the end I would storm out of the shop and threaten to take my business somewhere else. But there was nowhere else to go, so I would be back again the next day for another round. He would be there telling me and everyone how great the free enterprise system was, how good competition was for everyone and how the government should not interfere or try to regulate his business.Then one day something happened. The vacant shop next door was leased out to another grocer. Well, we did not hear the end of it. `This should not be allowed,' cried the shopkeeper, and on his counter was a petition to the government and the local council calling for them to regulate things so that you could not open up a shop near one that was already there. `I was here first,' he said. `I've got squatter's rights. They can't do this to me,' he shouted. Now, I had waited years for this to happen. This moment was so precious to me. `But what about all you said about free enterprise and competition and how the government should not regulate business?' I asked. I will not tell the Main Committee what his reply was, but things definitely got worse.The young couple who opened the new shop were Greek Australians. That was the final straw for the shopkeeper. `Bloody migrants; the government brings them in here to take your jobs away,' he ranted. And it was the final straw for me, too. I did not have to go back to that store; I had somewhere else to go. The two shops competed with each other in a way. Their prices were the same. Some, like me, preferred the service in the Greek shop, as we called it. Soon, though, the young Greek couple installed a deep fryer and a hamburger grill. They had realised that in our neighbourhood the kids had grown a bit older. Instead of drinking Ribena, they were drinking Coke and, instead of teething rusks, they were munching on hot chips and hamburgers. So the Greek shop prospered while the other shop faded. One day, there was a mysterious fire in the convenience store and we never saw the old shopkeeper again. Sadly, no-one seemed to miss him. The shop never reopened and still today has a tacky looking `For lease' sign in the window. What became of the winners in this battle for market supremacy? They sold out to a Lebanese couple, who sold out to a Chinese couple, who sold out to a Filipino couple, who sold out to someone else. I moved from that area about three years ago. Meanwhile, down the road, a set of golden arches appeared and the business went downhill. There was another mysterious fire and another tacky `For lease' sign. The drama I have just outlined to the House is not uncommon. As all members are aware, it has been acted out in neighbourhoods all over the country. What I want to draw from it is an understanding of the forces which shape our economy. It can be all too easy to blame governments for too much regulation or not enough of it. It can be too easy to point to people from different backgrounds as the cause of our troubles, and it can be too easy to blame the world for moving on when we would like it to stand still. When I look back to my childhood, I can remember—and I am not going to give my age away too much—the ice man, the horsedrawn bread cart and even—83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—Oh, come on! I can't believe it.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN—I don't look that old—a very rare sight these days, the milkman. We can be sentimental about the passing of these trades, but I am sure we would rather have a frost-free fridge than the old ice chest. So, for whatever reason, those trades have disappeared. Globalisation had little to do with it. Having said that, Mr Deputy Speaker, you might be thinking that this has little to do with the appropriation bills, so I will definitely get to my point. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) contains an item which provides an additional $36.4 million for assistance to the sugar industry. I will not pretend to be an expert on the sugar industry, nor would I oppose this increase in assistance, but I do note the fact that the sugar industry is receiving assistance. At this time, I will not even question why they are receiving that assistance. But I would ask why some other industries and, more to the point, workers who are displaced from those industries, do not get assistance. Let us look at a recent example. Furniture Australia is a large furnishing manufacturer which took over the operations of the previously government owned school furniture complex in New South Wales. That was back in the days when the pet shop parrots spoke of micro-economic reform. After the sale, the school furniture contracts in New South Wales were put out to competitive tender. Supplying furniture to schools in New South Wales is a very huge contract and winning or losing a contract can make or break a manufacturer. Having held the contract for a number of years, Furniture Australia failed to win sizeable orders in recent tenders. The struggle to contain costs in order to keep winning the contracts has taken its toll on the company. An administrator was appointed and the company went into liquidation in December 1999. Competition had claimed another victim. But the bad management went beyond the marketing side of the business. Its finances were a mess. There was no provision for the entitlements of workers—workers who had been with Furniture Australia and with the government owned operation before that; workers with up to 20 years service in some cases; and workers who had devoted the whole of their working lives to the company. They found themselves left out in the cold.The former owners of Furniture Australia, BTR Nylex, had already cut their losses, but the workers missed out. They were simply passed on each time the company was sold, going from having a guarantee of their entitlements under government ownership to seeing their money lost by the new owners. The workers of Furniture Australia were definitely sold down the river. They had no say as to who the owner of the business was. When I raised this matter with the then Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, his reply—too smart by half—pointed out that the Employee Entitlement Support Scheme was backdated to 1 January 2000. Furniture Australia went into liquidation in December 1999, one month too soon for workers to receive even the limited benefit of that scheme. But why should workers' entitlements of tens of thousands of dollars, in individual cases, be put at risk? What other branch of commerce would trust large sums to a business manager? Workers' entitlements should not be a lottery. Those entitlements should be safeguarded. As we begin to see signs of a weakening economy, as we see a slump in the building industry, it is only a matter of time before we see more employees of $2 companies being owed thousands of dollars in entitlements when their employers go broke. Are they victims of deregulation, competition or globalisation? I doubt it. More likely, they are the victims of greed.When we speak of deregulation, competition and globalisation, we cannot assume that all the players are equal, or that any one of the players will not try to gain an advantage at the cost of others. We may have to even up the playing field. We may have to regulate to ensure fairness, and we may have to provide assistance to industries which have shown that under normal conditions they can compete. The bias, if you call it that, on the Labor side of politics has been to regulate to protect the entitlements of workers.Small businesses are often the victims of company collapses: the losses they face when larger contractors fall often lead to their collapse and start a chain reaction. More and more workers find that their entitlements are lost. When times are good, few people call for regulation. Like the corner shopkeeper, they resent having to comply with what they see as government red tape. But when they face competition, they cry out for government intervention and assistance. As the old saying goes, they want to capitalise their profits and socialise their losses. As for employees, it seems that they do not know that their long service leave and annual leave entitlements are at risk until it is too late. The call to regulate to protect these entitlements has not been heard loudly until recently, although the problem has been around for a long time. It is all very well for the former minister, Peter Reith, to say that Labor did not act on the problem when we were in office, but I do not recall his once raising the issue during that time.After more than 20 years of deregulation, should we see further deregulation as inevitable? Some people would like to wind back the clock. They need to be reminded of the many benefits that have come in the form of lower prices and better service. I do not know how I would cope if shops were not open on Saturday afternoons or Sundays, as was the case not too many years ago. But there will always be a need for governments to regulate. There will always be a need to protect workers, consumers and small businesses. These issues of deregulation, competition and globalisation will require governments to be sensitive to the interests of not only those affected by changes but the broader community as well.The fate of the three groups that I have spoken of—the corner grocer, the furniture workers and the sugar industry—have a common thread which reminds me of the story of the Siberian thrush. Some members may have heard this story and would know that it takes about half an hour to tell, but I will definitely give the House the short version. A kind Siberian woodcutter was walking through the frozen Siberian woods when he saw a tiny thrush which had been blown from its nest, perhaps by the chill winds of global competition. The woodcutter could see that the bird was near death, so he picked it up and warmed it in his hands, bringing it back to life. He could not hold the bird all day, so he looked around and saw a steaming pile of Siberian moose dung. He gently placed the bird in the dung and went on his way. Feeling warmer, the bird began to sing, but his song was heard by the fierce Siberian wolf, who came and snatched the bird from its warm surroundings.There are three morals to the story. The first is that the person who gets you into the dung may not be your enemy. Regulation is not something you may enjoy but it has a purpose. The second moral of the story is that the one who gets you out of the dung may not turn out to be your friend. There are plenty of wolves around to take advantage of deregulated industries. But the third and most important moral of the story is: when you are up to your ears in steaming moose dung, you cannot always blame it on deregulation, competition or globalisation. A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 5.06 p.m. to 5.18 p.m.T4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—Do you remember where you got up to?83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN—Yes, I definitely remember. I think we have had a little bit of fun, so we will get right into it now. There is widespread talk of an economic downturn. There is evidence. Builders in Queensland are going broke at the rate of something like five a week. Small business is being hung out to dry because of the GST. My electorate of Fowler has a large small business sector. They are carrying the GST. They are struggling with the paperwork. They are struggling with the tax remittances. Many of them are about to dispense with the accountant they never had to have before. They are going to shut up their shops—not because of competition but because the GST has become too much of an added cost. The BAS relief is too late to save them, and we are bracing ourselves for a rash of small business failures, the like of which we have not seen since the credit squeeze of the sixties.The government has had to adopt Labor's policy—and they have adopted Labor's policy—because it did not have the antidote for the bite it inflicted on small and medium-sized businesses. It had no plan B, because it did not think it needed one. The GST was supposed to be simple. The GST was to mark a new era of prosperity. The GST was to be an uplifting experience. But small business has been badly let down. That is where the rage is coming from. Small business, the dynamo of employment, has been pushed against the wall by a government that declared its undying friendship to the little entrepreneur, the commercial Aussie battler. This government claimed it understood small business, as if the opposition did not. There is even $100 million in these bills to put a bit of commercial rigour into defence housing. But will they build in Queensland?I am sure the seat of Ryan could do with a lot of defence housing—and soon. But, again, we cannot blame globalisation for Queensland's building slump. It has an awful lot to do with the GST and the pre-June building surge. Residential building has fallen more than 42 per cent over the half year. That is a big fall: over 42 per cent. Shocking, isn't it? It is 42 per cent over the half year. It also means a big increase in the number of people out of work, and it is not going to get any better. Company profits are down, petrol prices were up for too long and, again, the Howard government has had to do a complete backflip. I think we have been watching the ABC recently when we see those little captions of a couple of our ministers doing backflips and reaching into Labor's policy suggestion box, but it is too late for this government.We are in the tunnel of the tunnel vision of this government and it is dark inside. All about us are echoes of words like `recession', `slump' and `downturn.' Confidence is what keeps economies going and growing. Lose it, and you slow down, and you go down into the darkness. But confidence is low, unemployment is rising and this government, this champion of business, does not have a clue what to do. Like Pooh Bear, full of honey, it has squeezed itself so far up the tunnel it cannot even turn around. It is a very clueless bear, and very soon it is going to have a very sore head.17:21:0025167Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2000-2001 appropriates extra funding for a range of purposes, but amongst them is $202 million to the Australian Taxation Office. Of that, $183 million is yet another allocation for increased costs associated with the implementation of the GST. Recall the exhortations and the proud boasts in the parliament of the Treasurer so many times saying that he was implementing a `streamlined new tax system for a new century'. I have had occasion to weigh that legislation and the explanatory material, and the latest weigh-in was certainly above seven kilos—and it is thicker than three telephone books. I have just had the opportunity of scanning some of the other acts which have been amended as a result of this so-called tax reform process and I do not dare, for the sake of the trees and public expense, print them out, because they run to literally thousands of pages. So much for a `streamlined new tax system for a new century'. This tax system was meant to replace the `outmoded 1930s Botswana style wholesale sales tax'. Incidentally, one of the boasts in getting rid of this Botswana style wholesale sales tax was that we would get a range of economic benefits, about which I will speak later, but one of those that was predicted by some of the modellers who did the work and by the Treasurer himself was that there would be an appreciation of the exchange rate. This was supposed to be a good thing but, in fact, since the implementation of the GST on 1 July, the Australian dollar has depreciated against in the order of 150 currencies out of a possible total of 161 currencies, including—surprise, surprise—the currency of Botswana and also Swaziland, spoken of in derogatory terms by the Treasurer as another one of those countries that had this outmoded complicated wholesale sales tax system that was being replaced with these kilos and kilos of the `streamlined new tax system for a new century.' Every day the Prime Minister is spending the Treasurer's credibility. He is spending it to the point where this government and, in particular, the Treasurer have lost all economic credibility. They are spending like drunken sailors, desperately trying to hold on to government. The previous Labor government, over a period of 13 years, implemented a whole range of economic reform measures that had the effect, ultimately, of very substantially boosting productivity. Some of those benefits did not come through in the early years, and that is why people were wondering what to make of this economic reform agenda, because the floating of the dollar, the liberalisation of financial markets and the internationalisation of the Australian economy did not seem to be yielding the benefits that were hoped of it. Those reforms in fact have yielded very substantial benefits for the Australian economy. But the benefits have become more manifest in the last few years. They have become more manifest in the form of an increase in the economically sustainable rate of growth—that is, the rate of growth that is sustainable without causing an acceleration in inflation. That sustainable rate of growth, having gone up, has meant that larger budget surpluses accrue because we are growing faster. That means lower unemployment benefits and higher tax receipts. This government has been relying on that higher sustainable rate of growth to achieve budget outcomes. But its luck, I am afraid, is starting to run out, because the government has not done anything substantial to continue the improvements in productivity that are required in this economy. Instead, it has embarked on an ideological obsession in two areas. One is the implementation of a goods and services tax and the other is the workplace relations changes. They have been driven more by ideology than by any attempt to improve labour productivity. We were presiding over very great improvements in productivity in this economy and then the government changed. By and large, in the pursuit of its ideological obsession, productivity growth is falling away and now we are confronted with the situation of a very substantial economic slowdown. The GST, and the blind ideological obsession that has driven it, is a GST that we did not have to have. This GST is causing an economic slowdown that we did not have to have. My fear is that there is a real risk that the GST will cause a recession that we did not have to have. I do not want this country to fall into recession. We will know a lot more about that when the national accounts are released tomorrow. It is very clear that if we are not in recession, we are in a period of very flat economic growth. That can only continue, because there are some very bad portents around. For example, just today, Westpac released data—the Westpac Composite Index. Its own verdict is that the GST has pre-empted the slowdown in the US economy. That is a nice set of words for saying that this is a self-inflicted wound; that the US economy is slowing down, anyway, but that has not in fact transmitted to the Australian economy yet. We have done our slowdown all on our own account through the implementation of the GST. The Westpac survey states: While high interest rates and energy prices have impacted both series, the GST effects in Australia have pre-empted the US weakness. The current level of the WCI—that is, the Westpac Composite Index—is around the lows of the mid-1990s with no guarantees that it has bottomed out.Today's ACCI Westpac survey of industrial trends for the March quarter 2001 has revealed a continued fall in business confidence. It has revealed a decline in output yet again. It has revealed a decline in new orders. It has revealed a sharp decline in exports to the lowest reading for the 1990s, except for the period of the Asian crisis. It has revealed a decline in capacity utilisation, and a decline in the profits outlook for the next 12 months to make up the worst profits outlook since 1990-91. It has revealed a squeeze on profit margins and a continued poor outlook for business investment, and it has revealed a continued soft employment outlook.These figures and the surveys released today accompany other disturbing data that has also been released recently. I would like to take honourable members through some of that data. It includes the largest year-on-year decline in the ANZ job advertisements series in a decade. That was released yesterday. It includes the ABS composite leading indicator, which points to a decline in growth since the GST was introduced. It includes business surveys from Dun and Bradstreet pointing to worsening business conditions. It includes National Australia Bank surveys pointing to a slowdown in economic activity. It includes a decline in the Westpac Melbourne Institute leading indicator of economic growth. It includes a pitiful investment performance, with the average annual growth rate of real new private capital expenditure over the last three years a disappointing minus five per cent, compared with 15 per cent in Labor's last three years in office.It includes the first consecutive quarters of year-on-year decline in real retail sales in nearly a decade. It includes the largest year-on-year decline in building approvals since at least 1984. It includes the largest decline in building work since John Howard was Treasurer back in the early 1980s. It includes record foreign debt of $301 billion, which is up by nearly 60 per cent in just five years under this government. It also includes more than 87,000 full-time jobs lost in the last four months. These are the portents, surely, of an economic slowdown.I am always amazed, when the Treasurer gets survey data and comments on it in the House, that he says, `That's just one survey and it's a disreputable survey. Who would believe Dun and Bradstreet? Who would believe Westpac? Who would believe the ACCI?' But when you put them all together, you get a very disturbing picture of what the GST has done to the economy.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—A disturbing pattern.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—Certainly, a disturbing pattern. The fact is that the GST is a wrecking ball swinging through the Australian economy. I recall that the Treasurer said that the GST package would create jobs, stronger growth and growth in exports. In fact, since the GST has been introduced there have been two contractions: a contraction in fiscal policy and a contraction in monetary policy. In relation to fiscal policy, there was meant to be in the order of a $6 billion stimulus associated with the income tax cuts. In fact, the GST has been reaping more revenue than the government expected it to do. It will not actually tell us exactly what those figures are, but it is quite obvious that the GST itself has been a source of fiscal contraction. In addition, the excises, particularly the ones that are fed by the GST, as they operate as a tax on a tax in tandem, have been a source of growth in revenue for the government. So you have got this fiscal contraction on the one side and on the other side there is a monetary tightening.Why did the government tighten monetary policy? They did so for reasons that they articulated before and after the last election; that is, they did not want the workers to get any idea that they might be able to pursue wage rises in response to the increases in the cost of living associated with the GST. They said to the workers of Australia, `We're going to screw the economy down to make sure that there is no wages flow-on from the increases in prices.' They did so. They deflated wage expectations; in fact, wages growth has been very moderate. So to that extent, given that that was the government's objective, they succeeded. But in combining both a fiscal contraction and a monetary contraction, the government have inflicted on this economy our very own home-grown slowdown.It is not as if the government was not warned about this. Evidence was given to the Senate GST inquiry by Professor Peter Dixon, who had done a lot of sophisticated modelling on the impact of the GST and the application of a new tax to tourism, education and a range of other services which are the big job growing areas in this country. Professor Dixon quantified that but he summarised it in these words, `The GST would be job destroying.' The government said, `No, the GST is going to create jobs.' With 87,000 full-time jobs lost over the last four months, it is pretty clear that Professor Dixon's warnings have been borne out and the Treasurer has been completely wrong in his predictions that the GST package would create jobs.The government is still congratulating itself on the smooth implementation of the GST. Honourable members might remember the great celebrations in the first few days after the GST was implemented. It said, `Look, it's going really well.' We warned it then not to get complacent and not to believe that the GST had gone over very well. In particular, we warned about the business activity statement and the instalments of tax that would be payable at that time.The government said, `Oh, well, the prices didn't really go up too much on 1 July in the supermarkets.' We never really asserted that the prices in the supermarkets would go up. We said—to use Kim Beazley's phrase—that there would be a `slow burn'. We said that the prices of services, and the lumpy services, would go up—obviously they would because there was no tax on services and now there is a 10 per cent tax on services. So when it came to insurance, when it came to electricity, when it came to phone bills and when it came to car repairs and a whole range of services, it would take time for people to start using those and to realise that the prices had gone up and that, `This is affecting my purchasing power.' As a result, consumer confidence has been collapsing in this country.The other thing that we said—apart from it being a slow burn, which has in fact been completely borne out—was that it would not necessarily be the first business activity statement instalment but the second one that would do the damage. The reason that we said that is that in small business it is quite common for businesspeople to put away some cash reserves for a rainy day, because you do not know what is going to happen. You do not know whether you are going to get sick or whether some other key personnel will get sick. You do not know if there is going to be some sort of downturn or whether you are not going to get the contracts that you hope to get. As a result, there is that cushion there, but that cushion of reserves was used up in the payment of the first GST instalments. After Christmas there are no cash reserves left, and it was the second GST instalment associated with the second BAS payment that we warned, right back at the beginning, would be the crunch time. Again, we were told that we did not know what we were talking about. I worked in small business. I was a small business proprietor for a couple of years. I feel I know what I am talking about. The Labor side are always told we are union people and we do not know about small business. I think we knew a lot more about small business than this government did, because we said it would be the second business activity statement that would create the difficulties, and so it has.I understand that there are rumours abounding following the first simplification of the business activity statement that the government reluctantly did after saying it was perfect. I understand that there is a new super-simplified business activity form that is being trialed by Treasury. It has just got two boxes. Box 1 says, `How much money did you pay?' You tick that and provide the number. Box 2 says, `Send it to us.' So it is a much more simplified business activity statement! That is where we are headed with this so-called simplified, streamlined, new tax system for a new century.I would like to draw your attention to what we might call the `Perth declaration' by the Treasurer. He said on ABC radio on 18 May last year:I don't think anybody will go to the wall as a consequence of GST. I think there are businesses that are getting into difficulty for all sorts of reasons. You know, it may be that sales are down, it may be that markets have changed, and businesses will rise and fall as they always have. But I don't think that there will be businesses that will founder because of GST.The Treasurer will live to regret those words. What do they say to the thousands of businesses that are under extreme pressure from the GST and to those many businesses which are already closing their doors because of the downturn in sales due to the collapse in consumer confidence associated with the GST? Is he going to say to them, `Look, that's got nothing to do with the GST. That's just because you weren't very good managers—the rise and fall of the small business sector'? If he does he will be doing so at his peril, because it is unarguably true that businesses are closing their doors because of the GST. They say, `We are on the side of business, but we are going to crunch business. We are on the side of business, but we are going to be the highest taxing government in a decade. But, worse than that, we will conceal it by classifying the GST as a state tax.' It is pretty clear that the whole tax reform—the Prime Minister's great tax adventure—is a complete and utter failure and a shambles.The new tax system was supposed to replace 10 taxes. This was the big virtue of the new tax system. In the end, it replaced only four taxes: the wholesale sales taxes, financial institutions duty from the middle of this year; a small bed tax that applied only in New South Wales and the Northern Territory—so I do not think that would be of any benefit in our state of Queensland; and stamp duty on shares. There is a whole range of taxes that are staying in place. They include income tax, payroll tax, petrol excise, alcohol excise, tobacco excise, diesel excise, stamp duty on buying a house, stamp duty on hire purchase, stamp duty on insurance, stamp duty on cheques, stamp duty on mortgages and bank accounts, debits tax, customs duty, gambling taxes and other state and local council fees and charges. It has been anything but streamlined. The entire tax system is a total shambles, symptomatic of the fact that the government has to appropriate more than $100 million to the tax office to implement this so-called `streamlined new tax system for a new century'. Of course we will not be opposing these appropriation bills—it goes without saying—but it does give us an opportunity to demonstrate one clear, unarguable point: the whole tax reform process has been a complete and utter shambles. 17:41:0025172Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I congratulate the honourable member for Rankin for his very fine contribution to this debate. Although these are appropriation bills, my area of interest that I want to talk about is defence. I want to take the opportunity to talk a little bit about some military justice matters. In the previous parliament there were three terms of reference given to the defence subcommittee. The first was looking at defence expenditure and the projected block obsolescence; the second was the sinking of the HMAS Sydney; and the third, by way of a motion sponsored by our shadow minister at the time, Arch Bevis, was looking at military justice. I have probably been a bit unkind about the defence expenditure inquiry, basically because I believed a parliamentary committee, at the end of the day, would not be influencing an ERC process. But I am happy to concede that that is probably too trenchant a position to take. No doubt, that report—particularly the report of the library defence team led by Derek Woolner—has had an effect on the defence debate. The second inquiry was what I have termed a 50-year-old naval board of inquiry. Whilst it is true that it provided, in some measure, a listening post for a lot of people who are very keen to satisfy themselves as to the mystery of the sinking of the Sydney, as I have said, in my view it was a 50-year-old naval board of inquiry. The most important of the inquiries was the military justice inquiry. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware that the worst type of parliamentary committee inquiry is one that goes over two parliaments. We started the inquiry late in the previous parliament, and our chairman, Senator David MacGibbon, was retiring six months after the second election of the Howard government. There was some anxiety about finishing the two remaining reports: HMAS Sydney—which we did—and the military justice one. I want to put on the record that I had hoped that we might have taken a few more witnesses in the military justice inquiry, if for no other reason than to give the newer members of the subcommittee an opportunity to familiarise themselves with what we were doing. In the end, the pressure of time did not allow that before we finished the report.I make the following points: firstly, in that inquiry I was very concerned about what were called attitude adjustment tours. When a private or private equivalent in the services was not performing particularly well and was in danger of being disciplined, they were sent over to the detention centre at Holsworthy and put through some exercises. In a preventative sense it was probably not a bad scheme; the problem was that it had no basis whatsoever in military law. It was, as I have said a couple of times, akin to kidnapping people and falsely imprisoning them. This came to light when a female private attempted suicide. She made this attempt not just because she had been part of the disciplinary tour but that was an element of it. I have read very carefully through the subsequent reports on the changes to the detention centre and I think they are very positive. I have seen nothing in them to quibble with; in fact, I endorse them. I have always been disappointed, though, that not one person has ever been charged over this. Here we have kidnapping and false imprisonment, yet not one officer was charged over it.Mention of that matter in the military justice report excited my interest. I placed a catch-all question on notice about whether or not there had been any other inappropriate disciplinary action, and whether such actions were being investigated. On 12 May 1999 Minister Scott replied:The only other claims of inappropriate disciplinary action involve another Army unit at Holsworthy. The Military Police have been investigating these claims since September 1998.You may accuse me of being thick and I plead guilty: I thought it was another instance of attitude adjustment tours, but it was not. It turns out that this was in 3RAR. It is a matter of record that a Time magazine article blew the lid on what was going on in 3RAR. The journalist who wrote the Time article thought I was onto what was happening there, and so we had a long conversation about 3RAR before his watershed article—for which, frankly, I believe he deserves commendation—blew the lid on it. This is bastardisation in the Army. I want to make it plain that there have been other occasions when bastardisation has occurred on a minister's watch—on the watch of ministers from both sides of parliament. I do not for one minute infer that the ministers approved of it or even knew about it. Yet they have always come forward and outlined what has happened and the action that they intend to take. The case of 3RAR is qualitatively different. It was not that the minister became vicariously informed about it. In fact, Minister Bronwyn Bishop or her office was contacted on two occasions by Mrs Nishimura, the first occasion being on 17 March 1998. I am not good at mental arithmetic, but I can tell you that in 11 days we will celebrate three years since Mrs Bishop was first advised that things were not going well in 3RAR. It is 1,085 days today since Mrs Bishop was first informed.The thing that really irritates me about the whole 3RAR affair is that there has not been one ministerial statement, not one press release, in 1,085 days. As I said, Mrs Bishop is the first one for whom an alarm bell is rung. What happened to her inquiry? What did she or her office do about the first inquiry and, indeed, the second inquiry? I do not know; it remains a mystery. But under normal circumstances, there would have been action. There would have been a note sent over to Defence and there would have been a note sent back, a briefing or a whole variety of things which could have happened. But one of them certainly would have happened. Minister Scott deceptively answered my question on 12 May 1999 by not saying that the unit was 3RAR; the answer was put back on the Notice Paper. Not only would the text of the answer have been there, but so would a briefing paper. If a minister is unhappy about an answer, or if he is unhappy about the note that briefs him or his staff about the answer, then he asks for further explanations. What did Minister Scott do when he said that the military police were winding up their investigations and that the report would be ready by the end of the month? This has been puzzling. I have placed some more questions on the Notice Paper that go to the heart of this matter, because there is no doubt that the military police investigation was wound up at the very point when they were concluding that there was a culture of violence in 3RAR. In fact, when the defence subcommittee, following the first Time article, had a hearing in camera with General Cosgrove, one of the things that really annoyed me was their defence as to why they could not have told the committee at the time of the first report what was going on in 3RAR. I cannot table the transcript because it is an in camera transcript, but believe you me: there was an extraordinary defence mounted about the impossibility of doing it, which I do not accept.Again, this did not prompt a ministerial statement, either by Minister Moore or by Minister Scott. At the end of the day, the 3RAR affair has caused a lot of action to be taken, but nothing has been put on the public record by Minister Bishop, by Minister Scott, by Minister Moore—and I think it is too early to say, by Minister Reith. At the end of the day, the buck stops with parliament; the buck stops with the ministers. If we are so concerned to identify and stamp out bastardisation, why don't we have a ministerial press release? Why don't we have a ministerial statement? We do not even have a ministerial press conference about the whole issue. I think everyone in Parliament House is determined to stamp it out. Community standards change. There will be a difference between military and civilian standards, but in this day and age the gap has to be narrow; it cannot be wide. Yes, we expect leadership from Admiral Barrie, but we also need to have ministerial leadership on this issue. I want to know how many times ministers have been briefed on this issue. What action have they taken? There has been action taken that I approve of: the appointment of an audit team, for instance. Whilst I am very happy that we have a judge who is an expert on copyright and patent law heading the team, I had hoped there would have been some outsiders in the team supporting him, but there are not. That would have added credibility and weight. But I approve of it. I think the Inspector-General is a good idea.The important thing about 3RAR is not so much bringing people to justice—important as that is—but that it is making sure that not only the privates, the corporals, the CSMs and the sergeants are held to account for their actions but also, if appropriate, the officers—the command responsibility. But important as those things are, they pale into insignificance compared to restoring confidence in the military justice system, and I think we have started down that road.I have said before that I think the investigative skills of the military police are an issue. And when you downsize an organisation from 500 to 400 people, you have got to lose some things. If it is at all possible, we need to use the military police reservists more. But the military police and the Army are now under unified command for the first time. That change occurred in January 2000. I have been critical of the Defence Legal Office; I think we have a serious problem there: there is an own motion inquiry going on, if you like. It is a pity that there are no proper terms of reference, and it is a pity that there is not a dedicated team doing that. But I will give the ADF some marks for that.When we were doing this first military justice inquiry, the chair, Senator MacGibbon, and I argued long over the institution of a director of military prosecutions. To use his words about the failure of both the minister and the ADF to tell us about 3RAR, `They lied to us; they deceived us.' We would not have had that debate had we known. We recommended a sunset situation—that is, we would give the ADF another two years before we revisited it. Had we known about 3RAR, there is no doubt in my mind—and, if anyone wants to consult with Dr David MacGibbon, there is no doubt in his mind—that we would have recommended a director of military prosecution, an independent office within the Army. They have set up what they call a prosecuting cell in the ADF legal office. This is as close as you can get to a Clayton's director of military prosecutions. But it is not good enough.There is a lot more I wish to say about this but, hopefully, the defence subcommittee will be bringing down its report shortly. Again, the most important thing is for us to make recommendations that strengthen confidence that military justice is fair and just and that it applies not only to privates, corporals, sergeants and CSMs but equally to officers. No more should we have Birrer reports that indicate that officers under the gun are dealt with administratively and get not only their retirement benefits but also a golden handshake by way of punishment. That is no longer acceptable; it is not good enough.I do believe, and I want to put again on the publicrecord, that General Cosgrove and the Army are cooperating to the fullest extent with the defence subcommittee. I am very grateful for the detailed reports that General Peter Leahy has been providing to the subcommittee about the progress of charges, investigations and trials. Unfortunately, I think that that has still some way to run. Last, but not least, I want to mention something that I have been accused of, and that is recommending that 3RAR be abolished. It is true, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have said to a journalist that, at the end of the process, we need to consider this issue. You might say that I am splitting hairs—and I do not have a lot of hairs to split, to be truthful—but I do believe it is a consideration. I certainly am not in the camp of disbanding 3RAR, a unit with a very proud history. But I have to say that, on the issues that the committee has examined, I have been deeply disturbed. I know that we have witnesses that we have not examined that bring these instances back as far as the 1980s. These things, to me, are deeply disturbing but, at the end of the day, I want to assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all honourable members that I think that they can be well satisfied with the work of the defence subcommittee on the issue of 3RAR in restoring confidence in the military justice system. 18:01:0025175Byrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE008K0HoltALP00—I rise tonight to raise a number of instances where people's rights have been trampled, people's concerns have not been listened to and people's despair has not been taken into account. I have always believed that our job as elected representatives is to reflect the views of people and to make sure that their voices are heard, both in government agencies and the government itself. I want to raise three instances this evening where that quite clearly has not happened. As I said, as elected representatives, I believe it is our responsibility to make sure that these sorts of things do happen.The first instance relates to an issue that I raised on 26 February about the ACCC and its inability or unwillingness to investigate substantial fraud that exists within the car insurance industry. The car insurance industry is a fairly substantial industry obviously but, most importantly, there are people that feed off the car insurance industry and they are in the crash repair industry. There are something like 8,500 crash repair centres in Australia and there is a scandal that they are being exposed to that they want fixed. They have been, as I understand it, pushing for this scandal to be resolved for some four or five years now. But this scandal, this rip-off of taxpayers and motorists, has not been addressed. The agency that should be investigating this extortion, this fraud, is the ACCC but, despite numerous requests to the ACCC, and numerous legal opinions that it should be investigated by the ACCC, this substantial fraud has not been investigated. I would like to address some of the concerns that have been raised and to provide additional evidence as to why it should be investigated. The car repair industry in Victoria has about 1,500 car repair centres. Seventy per cent of the money for the repair of these cars comes from insurance companies. The accident repair centres incidentally have received no increase in payments from the insurance companies for the last three years, as I indicated in my speech on 26 February, even though the cost of parts and other things have increased by some 23 per cent. There is an estimated $400 million to $500 million windfall that came to insurance companies as a consequence of this GST increase. What has happened is that, despite the fact that the insurance companies are levying greater amounts as a consequence of the GST increase, they are not passing that on to the car repairers. The crash repairers are being paid the same amount as before, or less, than they should be being paid. What I have raised is one particular instance.One of the main perpetrators of the insurance fraud is the RACV, the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria. As I said, I cited in my speech of 26 February several instances of fraud—basically there is no other word for it—that had been perpetrated by that particular company. The RACV was asked for a response, and basically their response to the allegations and the instances that I raised was that, `That was past history.' I say that for the RACV and for the agencies that should be investigating it this is not past history. This is continuing to happen at this point in time. The fact that it is not being investigated is unacceptable.As I did in my earlier speech, I refer to a document that is used by the RACV to investigate accident claims: a potential fraud indicator. I have that fine document in front of me. The fraud indicator lists the signs of a potential fraudster. Basically, the fraud indicator sheet must be looked at prior to processing every accident claim. Some indications of a potential fraudster are: the ethnicity of the insured, which seems to be fairly important; whether or not the vehicle was stolen from the western suburbs, and this in Victoria is fairly important; whether or not the nationalities of the parties are similar; whether or not the claimant is unemployed; and whether or not the claimant is between 21 and 25 years of age. In my previous speech I gave an example of how a particular, innocent individual was affected by this potential fraud indicator, and I raise another example here as I revisit this wonderful indicator of the RACV. Mr Alan Nikolic's car was stolen and burnt four years ago. The car was under finance and was about 10 months old when it was taken. What has the RACV done with respect to this particular case? In four years it has done nothing. What is the problem? Mr Nikolic has a foreign name, his policy was less than one year old, his car was under finance, it was stolen and burnt in the western suburbs, and the policy was to be renewed in two months time. These factors amounted to a crime, according to the RACV. RACV investigators told Mr Nikolic that fraud had been proven and so the police would be called in. Mr Nikolic encouraged them to do this because he wanted the issue brought to a head. However, the police were never called and the company refused to pay him out. Mr Nikolic then pursued legal avenues until he ran out of money; he was also paying the car finance company at the same time. Mr Nikolic's insurance agent then went to the Insurance Inquiries and Complaints Commission, who found nothing wrong with the RACV's actions.What is really dishonest here is that the RACV did not tell the finance company that the car had been stolen because they did not wish to pay anyone out. They actually did not want to deal with a company that had the power and money to take them on; they only wanted to take on a little person like Mr Nikolic. As I said, this case has not been settled after four years. The example illustrates the need for an independent assessor, funded by separate sources, to oversight the insurance industry—especially the RACV—and not the Insurance Inquiries and Complaints Commission which is paid for by the insurance companies.I cite another example of an individual who has had some interesting experiences with respect to the RACV. Mrs Jenni Wati of Forest Hill was awarded almost $4,000 to cover repairs after taking the RACV to court. A chap rectified the problems after the RACV had tried twice. He was a crash repairer who had been operating as one of their agents for some four or five years, but the RACV seemed to have a difficulty with him after he started to bring to their attention the fact that he was unhappy with the way they were conducting their affairs. Despite him being extremely competent and repairing cars like Ferraris and Lamborghinis et cetera, the RACV had an issue with him. It is interesting to note what magistrate Hal Hallenstein said about the RACV's repair centres:The issue is, one or other is reasonable ... or one or other is unreasonable. This is not a simple cost of repairs. RACV say they can be done cheaper, but they have done an inadequate job because they were cheap.In 1999 Mr Herfords, who is one of the people connected with the RACV insurance, said on 3LO:If we went to the repairer with the lowest quote we would be putting a lot of vehicles back on the road that aren't being repaired in accordance with how they ought to be repaired. The words do not actually seem to match the actions or the court case. There is another instance, a Mr Lima of Lilydale. Mr Lima was unfortunate enough to run into an RACV-insured vehicle. This is bad enough, but in the subsequent weeks he finds out, through the person he has crashed into, that the RACV has got three quotes, including one from its own repair centre, which was the most expensive. The quotes were: $1,229; $1,002; and for the RACV, the finest repairers in the business, some $2,044. That is some $800 more than anyone else. Luckily, Mr Lima caught out the RACV and wrote to them. They have not followed up on that claim against Mr Lima because they were caught out. It is instructive to look at the RACV marketing brochure. In the quality standards section it says: Repair quality is difficult, if not impossible for the average person to judge. It is an unfortunate fact that a minority of crash repairers are dishonest.The question for us here looking at his matter is to judge for ourselves who is being dishonest about this. I would like to cite another case, the case of Mr Vonic. Mr Vonic had a crash and sought the services of Mr Gerry Raleigh. Well, did he get the runaround. The RACV even went so far as to say that Mr Raleigh was black-banned and that Mr Vonic would have to pay for the repairs himself and then wait for a cheque. Sadly for Mr Vonic, he had to pay for the car himself, because the RACV would not pay for it at that time, and then wait for the RACV's cheque. He actually had to borrow the money to exercise his choice. But that is not how the Insurance Council of Australia believes the industry should work. I would like to quote Mr Ron Frail:The Trade Practices Act prevents insurers forcing someone where to go.Here is Mr Herford's response on 3LOin April 1999:It's hardly in our interests or the best interests of our customers to be involved in any nonsense such as paybacks, and I think in the circumstances there are deeper reasons for our lack of relationship with Gerry and his panel shop.My question is: whom do you believe? Part of the scandal of this is that people believe that the car insurer should have the primary relationship with the crash repairer, and that basically car insurance companies should be the ones dictating how the repairs should be done. That is a falsehood that has been perpetuated by the insurance companies and is leading to a lot of the misunderstanding and—dare I say it—fraud that exists at the present time. I would like to bring to this chamber's attention the fact that I have in my possession a legal opinion which completely disputes that commonly held belief. It is, I believe, an opinion that has been tendered to Mr Alan Fels and the ACCC. I would like to cite selected quotes from it:The relationship between the insured and the insurer is the same in the context of motor vehicle insurance when compared with any other policy. Therefore, the relationships between the insured, the insurer and the repairer are the same in the context of household insurance, for example, as it is in motor vehicle insurance. Because of the volume of work handled by motor vehicle repairers there may be a closer liaison between the insurer and the repairer which has led to an apparent distortion of those relationships. It gives an example of when a vehicle gets repaired:Accordingly, if the car owner gains two or three quotations for the repair of the vehicle, it is up to the car owner to decide who will repair the vehicle—not the RACV—If the quotation from the owner's choice of repairers is higher than the insurance policy would allow, then the owner would be responsible for the difference between the insurance payment and the account rendered by the repairer.This could arise in many circumstances. For example, the car owner may decide to have some other work attended to or he simply prefers the standard of work by a particular repairer even though the cost may be above market rates.The point is, the contract of insurance is between the car owner and the insurance company.There is not, and never has been, any contract between the insurance company and the repairer. There is, in fact, no legal relationship between the two at all.Contrary to what is implied by the insurance companies— The contract to repair the vehicle is made with the customer i.e. the owner of the motor vehicle.Accordingly, the car owner has two contracts. Firstly, a policy of insurance with the insurance company to cover damage to his vehicle. Secondly, when a vehicle is damaged, the car owner will then make another contract with the repairer to affect the necessary repairs.The role of the insurance company in the repair of the vehicle should be limited purely to the role of paying for those repairs to the extents covered under the policy of insurance.We are all aware of course that because of the muscle flexed by insurance companies and the reliance that repairers have upon the work provided by insurance companies, they have learnt that they are able to exert a great deal of pressure on the repairers and in many ways may have gone beyond their contractual relationship with the car owner.For example—this is absolutely scandalous—it is not uncommon for the insurance company to direct the repairer to use secondhand or imitation parts. This often occurs without consultation with the car owner. When looking at this process in the context of the contractual arrangements detailed earlier in this article, you will see that there is no contractual relationship between the insurer and the repairer. The insurer—such as the RACV, the NRMA or a number of other organisations that conduct their affairs in this manner—therefore has no right, or authority in a legal sense to make any such direction to the repairer whatsoever.The insurer, if it wishes to follow this course, must approach the customer and if the customer agrees then the repairer can install the secondhand or imitation part. If then, as a repairer, the insurance company tells you the manner in which the works are to be affected and you, as the repairer, are aware that that may be contrary to the customers wishes, then you should advise the insurance company that they should consult with the car owner direct to gain their written authority or in turn you should contact the car owner to determine whether they are happy to follow the requests of the insurance company.The opinion states also:You will see from the considerations relating to contract, that the insurance company cannot direct either the repairer or the car owner as to how these repairs are going to be affected.But quite clearly that is not the case. Basically, this is happening all the time. I would like to quote more but time does not permit. The opinion concludes:In summary, it is important to realise at all times that the repairer has a contract to repair the vehicle with the car owner. There is and never has been any contract between the insurance company and the repairer. All instructions to repair a vehicle must come from the car owner. Any direction from the insurance company must be agreed to, preferably in writing by the car owner before the work is effected on the particular vehicle.This does not occur in the car insurance industry. I ask the ACCC and others who are supposed to be monitoring this industry: why do consumers not know this? It is costing consumers a large amount of money that they might not otherwise have to pay. It is also, basically, ensuring that cars are put back on the road after being repaired with second-hand and bodgie parts without the consumer's knowledge or consent. In my belief that is an absolute scandal, which should be addressed by the relevant government agency and/or body but to this point of time does not appear to have been addressed.I had intended to talk about three cases, but I will have time for only two. The first concerns one of my constituents who served in the Navy and, in his view, has been betrayed by it. We have heard from Roger Price about some of the difficulties that exist within the bureaucracy of the military establishment.Mr Graeme Griffiths has been involved in two tragic incidents when serving Australia in the Navy. On 3 June 1969, Graeme was serving on HMAS Melbourne when it was involved with USS Evans in a disaster. He, like many others serving at the time, has never fully recovered and has been left with mental scars which will never disappear. However, later in that year, in November 1969, a sublieutenant sexually harassed Graeme when he was still a junior officer. He reacted violently to this attack by the sublieutenant. Afterwards he was hospitalised due to severe distress, and he was later discharged. Immediate assessments of Mr Griffiths after these incidents rated his disability at 30 per cent. This took account of the sexual harassment but excluded the HMAS Melbourne disaster, which has ruined the lives of many people who survived it. A Navy doctor made this assessment but no counselling was provided for either incident in which Graeme suffered. Since then Mr Griffiths has led a tortured life. He has not been able to hold down jobs, he was divorced once and his ability to deal with day-to-day life has been getting worse, according to his psychiatrists. Current specialists rate his incapacity for loss of mental powers for work at 40 per cent, and the median level of impairment at 30 per cent. All reports indicate that this impairment relates back to his Navy service. Immediately after Graeme decided to leave the Navy, the Commonwealth Medical Officer assessed him for defence forces retirement benefits and allocated him an incapacity for civil employment at 15 per cent. As a consequence of this assessment, Mr Griffiths received a payout to the grand total of $490—not much compensation for so much suffering. Today Mr Griffiths is still fighting the various institutions to seek proper compensation. At first he approached the Defence Personnel Executive, in May 2000, to see if he could be considered for an invalidity pension through the superannuation fund.They told him that, since he was assessed at 15 per cent incapacity at the time and discharged medically unfit, a retrospective benefit could not be paid. Effectively, he needed an act of grace for reconsideration. Sadly for Mr Griffiths, he was not aware of his rights at the time of discharge and was totally unaware he was discharged as medically unfit with a 15 per cent incapacity. Currently, Mr Griffiths is dealing with Comsuper, trying to push his case along. Unfortunately, all institutions continue to ask for medical reports from the 1970s, but they were never conducted properly by the Navy. One only assessment by the Navy assessed Graeme at 30 per cent incapacity but, to date, others, which vary, such as the Commonwealth Medical Officer's report, seem to hold sway. The fact that the Commonwealth Medical Officer was not a specialist in the area of post-traumatic stress disorder and did not include the incident of the HMAS Melbourne did not seem to matter—just a sort of a small accident obviously.At 15 per cent Graeme is not entitled to much. At the moment Mr Griffiths is waiting for the slow wheels of bureaucracy to move. He may have a claim with the Department of Veterans' Affairs through the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service or possibly through the Veterans Entitlement Act 1986. It all seems very slow and wrong. Graeme Griffiths did try in 1980 to make a compensation claim, but his medical condition did not allow him to follow through. I call on the minister to see if we can provide some justice after such a long time for friends of Mr Griffiths who have allegedly committed suicide after sexual harassment. I have a statutory declaration that basically states that four people have committed suicide, allegedly due to sexual harassment. They will have some level of restitution, albeit too late. We hope that they will receive justice. We also hope that Mr Griffiths will receive justice. (Time expired)18:21:0025180Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The appropriation bills give members the opportunity to review the government's performance and look at where and how Australia's taxpayers' money has been spent. It is the time when, as a member of parliament, I can look at the government's legislation as a whole and ascertain whether or not the people I represent in this parliament are being governed fairly and whether or not this government is directing money into programs that benefit them or disadvantage them. I am sure that some of the programs in the legislation that the government passes do benefit some Australians. But the people in the Shortland electorate and in a number of areas throughout Australia are really hurting because they are finding it very hard to make ends meet. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Howard government the verdict is a very sad and sorry one. Not only is this government failing to deliver services and programs to the people of Shortland and Australia; it is actively discriminating against many ordinary Australians, and that really makes me sad. Many of those people end up in my office and, I am sure, in many of the other members' offices with their problems, telling us just how much they are hurting. Believe me, they really are hurting.Since I have worked as a member of parliament I have never had to put so many ordinary Australians—people that have always managed to make ends meet—in touch with charitable organisations to help them pay their electricity bills, their water bills or their telephone accounts. These are families, pensioners and unemployed Australians, people that are finding it hard to find a job because of the structural changes within our economy and people who are sick. They include people with small businesses and motorists. In Australia we have a Prime Minister that has said he is totally committed to winning the next election. What does this mean for the Australian people? Do they want a Prime Minister that is totally committed to winning the next election? Or do they want a Prime Minister that is going to lead a government that will put through legislation that will benefit them, set in place a future for their children, protect the environment they live in and make sure that as a country we have the knowledge, the technology, the education and the skills that we need to embrace the millennium?If we have a Prime Minister who is committed to winning an election, he is going to react to all the populist issues within the community. We have seen that with the reduction in the petrol excise recently. Let me put on record that I welcome that reduction, but I believe that it was too little, too late. For a very long time, Australians were saying they could not manage, they were struggling and finding it hard to manage with petrol at the price it was; the GST had increased the price of petrol but the government did not listen. The Prime Minister said, `Sorry, we can't afford it.' But, given the fact that he is committed to winning the next election rather than governing Australia, when he was faced with electoral defeat he decided to act on petrol prices. This is sad, because it is sad for Australia. We need a Prime Minister that is there to lead Australia and do what is best for our country, and not just react. We found a similar situation with the BAS statement. For a long time, I am sure government backbenchers were telling the Prime Minister and the Treasurer just how hard it was for small business. I know that they were ringing my office and telling me about the problems that they were having. A little later I will go into some of the details of just two small businesses that I have been dealing with over the BAS statements. There have been many people that have had problems, but it was only when the government felt, and only when the Prime Minister felt, that the commitment to winning the next election might not come to fruition unless he changed his position did he and his Treasurer and his government actually listen to the people of Australia. I do not believe that that is good enough. There has never been a government that has caused more hurt to the people of Australia than this, I have to say, mean-spirited Howard government. I am sure the GST, on paper, looked very good to the government but, unfortunately, for the people of Australia, it has not been so kind. It is a tax that taxes every Australian every day in so many different ways. You cannot eat without having the GST impact in some way. Certain foods are supposed to be GST free, but the GST does impact on the price of food, all food, indirectly if not directly. I have already touched on petrol and the impact that the GST has had on the price of petrol. Education is GST free? Tell that to the mums and dads who have to buy the uniforms, the schoolbooks, the school cases and all the clothes that students need to go to school. They will tell you that education is not GST free. The GST impacts on health. It impacts on the price that is charged for so many different health services, yet the government does not acknowledge this. It has not acknowledged the hurt that it is causing the Australian people. With respect to services, I touched on telephones, electricity, gas, insurance, taxis, restaurants and all those things that previously were untaxed.Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I know that in your own area you have felt the impact the GST has had on residents of caravan parks, who are now faced with having to pay a GST on their rental. It is a very harsh tax and it is the linchpin of the government's policy; it is the linchpin of the government's fundraising or taxing policy. It is a policy that has really hurt Australian people and has caused so much hardship. The pensioners in Australia are hurting and hurting in many ways. This week we have seen the government's policy on clawback.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—The policies of the Howard government are designed to drag Australia back to the 1950s when the rest of the world is embracing the new millennium. We have a Prime Minister with a vision of Australia that begins with the picket fence. His Australian dream is all about the wife staying at home looking after the children—that is his idea of social order: he sits in his Chesterfield lounge and looks back to the 1950s.There has never been a government that has caused more hurt or been more mean spirited than this government. Pensioners in Australia have been very disillusioned by the performance of the government. Prior to 1 July last year they were looking forward to receiving a $1,000 savings bonus. It has been argued by the government that it was always a bonus for saving, but pensioners thought this was being given to them to help them cope with the effects of the GST. That, coupled with the fact that they believed they had been given a four per cent pay rise to help them cope with the effects of the GST, has caused them quite a deal of angst, particularly when they have found out that now they will not be given an increase in their pension in March because a clawback principle was put in place in the GST legislation. I have had pensioners sitting in my office with tears rolling down their faces, saying that they feel dehumanised by this government and that they feel worthless. They feel that the government does not value them enough to pay them a decent savings bonus or give them a decent rise in their pension. It is a very sad state of affairs that, in a country like Australia, older Australians are feeling so devalued.This government has a philosophy that if you work hard and save then you should be rewarded. I do not think anyone would argue with that principle, but the converse of that is that if you have not saved then you must not have worked hard and therefore you do not deserve anything or you are just undeserving. That does not take into account that things happen in a person's life. They can work really hard and try their best to save, but they may have an accident and find they have to finish work earlier than they intended, which can really affect their plans for retirement, or they may be retrenched—and we all know how industries have restructured in recent times. All these little accidents of life can change a person's plans for retirement. It is not that they are lazy, it is not that they are not prepared to work hard; rather, it is that they have not been as lucky as some other people. When we see that tax breaks are given by the government to benefit their mates in big business, looking after the big end of town, it really is hard to come to terms with this. We find banks with record profits, and their CEOs receiving salaries in one year that people would dream about receiving in a lifetime. The government has backed off on the family trust legislation. When you look at the favourable treatment that has been given to Kerry Packer as far as taxation is concerned, you cannot help but sympathise with pensioners and the way they feel. There has never been a government so determined to disadvantage ordinary Australians and to deliver profits and rewards to their friends. The divide between people who are wealthy and those who are poor has never been greater. As recently as last Sunday I was reading an article in the Sun-Herald that talked about how 50 per cent of people who live in Sydney have never been better off on, how they have money to spend on entertainment and recreation. But there is another story that is hidden away: there are people who are struggling from day to day to survive. In our history there has never been a greater gap between those people who have and those who have not.This government has boasted that it is a party for small business, but all this government has done for small business is to cause it hardship, to increase its workload and to turn it into a tax collector for the government. The BAS has been a fiasco. I will share with members the story of two businesses in the Shortland electorate. One is an appliance business. It worked on rebuilding whitegoods and then selling them. It also repaired washing machines, dryers and those types of goods. With the introduction of the GST, half of its business disappeared. The selling of the rebuilt machines went out the door—that was three jobs gone, three people out of work. Now the owner is facing another dilemma. He had been battling with the BAS, and he had been under the impression that he could claim back all his GST. He became very confused and annoyed because he could not get anything in writing. Recently he sold his old vehicles and bought new vehicles, and he thought that he could reclaim the GST back on the new vehicles. As we know, that is not the case, but he did not know that. He has since found out that there are things that he cannot claim back, and he has asked for a list of them from the tax office. The tax office has told him, `There is no such list. If you want to find out whether you have to pay GST on something or not, you are going to have to ring us each time to get an individual ruling.' I can tell you that this is one angry small businessman. He has lost half of his business, and now he is in total confusion about what he can claim the GST on and what he cannot.I was talking to the owner of another business—a mixed business—on the Central Coast that is doing very well with a large turnover of just under $1 million, and she was telling me that she has to spend half a day a week away from the shop, which means employing extra staff. It takes her four hours to reconcile accounts and then another two hours to do paperwork. She is finding it really hard to cope with.These are only two businesses that I am talking about but, believe me, the government ignores at its peril the hardship, the difficulties and the hours of extra work that small businesses are having to put in just to meet the GST BAS requirements. Every day there is a new problem. The Labor Party traditionally has not attracted a lot of small business people to join it, but you would be surprised at the number of small business people, just within the Shortland electorate, who have recently joined the Labor Party and who have offered to help me during the election. I think the government really stands condemned for what it has done to small businesses in Australia. It has taken away their hope, and it has transferred all the hard work—the tax burden—onto them.Another area in which the government has failed the Australian people is health. There is a dramatic decline in bulk-billing, as I have mentioned many times in the House. The government has done nothing to address this issue; it has no commitment to Medicare. Another tragedy is its action of removing the Commonwealth mental health scheme, which has caused so much hardship for pensioners and families in our community. Its performance in the education area leaves a lot to be desired. Seventy per cent of Australian students attend public schools and 30 per cent attend private schools. It is an absolute disgrace that the government is funding category 1 schools at the level that it is. It is such a disgrace. Public schools are feeling so discriminated against that, on 15 March, they are holding a public education day, so that they can get out there and sell to the community what they are doing in their schools. The money has been taken out of the schools that really need it and has been put into those schools that are wealthy. Trinity Grammar School is one of those schools that will benefit from it and will be in receipt of an extra $5 million a year from the federal Treasury. Whilst it is receiving this—a subsidy of over $1,700 per student—an average government school student will be receiving $5 extra per year. Please tell me where the equity is there—I cannot see it. Seventy per cent of the students are getting $5 while a student attending Trinity is receiving $1,700.The Prime Minister has repeatedly told the Australian people that the government could not afford to reduce the excise on petrol. But guess what? That was before he rolled over on petrol. Instead of investing money in petrol and giving relief to Australian motorists he told us that he would put money into the Roads to Recovery program. Obviously I support putting money into the Roads to Recovery program, but the thing that was so dishonest about it was the accounting mechanism that was put in place and the way that the government misled the Australian people by double-dipping and double counting every bit of money they put into the roads. Senator Tierney in the Hunter put out information that said that $44 million was going to our area when in fact there was only $25 million. Appropriations provide a broad umbrella for the government's legislation. Unfortunately this legislation is an umbrella for legislation that disadvantages ordinary Australians, making it harder for them to put food on the table and forcing them to choose between the necessities of life. (Time expired)20:11:0025183Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise tonight to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2000-2001, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2000-2001 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2000-2001. I notice within these particular bills that there is no provision for funding of employment programs. I want to address my comments to the lack of attention being paid to unemployment and employment issues in this country at this time. It is particularly timely to be looking at employment issues in the context of the recent slowdown in the economy evidenced by the ongoing drop in building approvals, ANZ job ads down a further 10 per cent in February, and retail sales volumes down 0.1 per cent in the December quarter on a year earlier. This is the first time sales volumes have fallen year on year for two quarters in a row since 1991—a very worrying sign. This is on top of the other economic data of recent weeks showing full-time employment down 87,300 in just four months, inflation at a 10-year high, business confidence faltering and the dollar at a record low.I would like to make some observations about the human catastrophe of unemployment and some of the myriad of possible solutions. When researching this topic I was concerned to find that issues concerning unemployment appear to have fallen off the political radar screen. Newspapers rarely editorialise about unemployment; the government rarely raises it other than to promote its lopsided mutual obligation theory. It is even difficult to find discussions of it within the world of academia. This is why I was so pleased to have land on my desk a document called Pathways to work: preventing and reducing long-term unemployment, a collaborative effort between the Australian Council of Social Service, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Business Council of Australia and the Dusseldorp Skills Forum, amongst others. This call to arms is also backed up by quantitative polling that shows that jobs are still a key issue in the minds of all Australians. Reducing the unemployment rate must always be a goal of all good governments. The economic costs and threats to our financial security that sustained unemployment brings cannot be underestimated. Pathways to work notes one of the economic costs as a five to six per cent loss of GDP. The Boston Consulting Group estimates that the public costs for a year of unemployment will vary from $51,000 in the case of a 21-year-old earning $15,000 year prior to unemployment, to $146,900 in the case of a 50-year-old white-collar worker on a pre-unemployment income of $42,000 per annum. Most families with at least with one income earner out of work live below the Henderson poverty line. Unemployment leads to an increase in the need for affordable public housing stock and the attendant drain on the welfare support system. However, we must never forget the social cost. Long-term unemployment is a truly soul-destroying experience for not only the unemployed person but their whole family. Not only are unemployed people more likely to be in poor health but they also suffer from more chronic disease. The poverty experienced by unemployed parents will often decrease the educational opportunities of their children, not to mention the increased risk of family breakdown. Intergenerational unemployment is a new phenomenon, as many parents unable to find work see their own children struggle with unemployment. In some households no-one has a job. Some of the other grinding effects of unemployment result in people suffering from a loss of self-confidence and self-worth, often leading to a spiralling cycle of depression, alcoholism and even suicide.What we also know is that unemployment affects Australia in a disproportionate manner. Regional areas have been hit hard, whether they be on the outskirts of major cities, in the heart of the bush or in towns whose industries have suffered from the unrelenting winds of globalisation. The member for McMillan opposite can speak, probably at greater length, about this in his electorate. He has seen it all too often. ABS figures show that the profile of a long-term unemployed person tends to be a person who is without formal skills and education. Older workers and younger people are particularly at risk. The Boston report for the Business Council, which is published in Pathways to work, points out:... major life transitions such as the school to work transition and the termination-back-to-work transition are the key stages when people are at risk of long-term unemployment. It is estimated these 2 groups make up to 50% of entries into long-term unemployment.Like most members of this House, I have heard heart-rending stories from constituents in my electorate of Chisholm about their battles to find a job. It is particularly this group of people who have been terminated and are trying to get back into the work force whom I have come across time and time again. It is tragic because there is nothing special for them. They are a distinct group of individuals. They have probably been with one company for 15, 20 or 30 years. They may only be 45 years of age and suddenly they are now without a job and without the skills to get a job. There do not seem to be any programs out there to assist these individuals, particularly men who have worked in middle management and have been made redundant, unable to find a job.I had one individual who came to me and said, `Look, it seems like a silly thing, but 12 months ago I could pay my MCG membership. Nowadays I can't. I have paid it for all my life. I pride myself on being able to take my son and my grandson to the cricket, and I can't.' This man was a fairly senior individual on a high executive salary who thought that he would have no problems in getting another job. He has been out of work now for five years and has only been able to pick up casual bits of work. It has totally demoralised him and it has, tragically, led to the breakdown of his family. Many women who have taken years out of the work force to raise children find their skills are out of date and no-one will rehire them. I had a youngish woman in my office the other day who had taken several years out of the work force to go and look after her small children and was finding it increasingly difficult to be recognised with her teaching skills to get back into the sector in Victoria. I am pleased to say that things have improved now that we have a state Labor government. I was seeing a lot more women in this situation when the Liberals were in power in Victoria, because they had dramatically reduced the number of teaching places and this was a great impost on women trying to return to the work force. I have also seen young people who have finished school or university only to find they can only get a couple of hours work a week or contract labour, three months here or three months there, with no hope of ever getting a loan from a bank to buy a car, go on a trip or—God help us—actually purchase their first home. I have also come across 50-year-olds who are told they are simply too old to get a job and they should forget about the paid work force and take up a hobby or do volunteer work. The thing that most people do not realise is that a lot of people at 50 still have young families to support. They still have kids going through school. They still have mortgages to pay and they cannot afford to be on the work scrap heap, nor do they choose to be on the work scrap heap. The rapid changes to the world economy have left many people behind. As jobs in the manufacturing and primary industries have either been moved offshore or been made redundant by technology, the new economy has not provided the transitional jobs to accommodate these dislocated workers. The demographic trends in Australia mean this issue will exacerbate rather than ease the problems of mature age unemployment. The percentage of the population aged between 45 and 65 will rise until 2011 and then taper off. As the baby boomer generation moves into this age group, there will be an even greater need to look at strategies to assist mature age people to find work.So what can governments do? This is obviously an enormous question but I would like to look at a few suggestions primarily addressing the issues of young people and mature age workers. The school to work transition is a crucial time for young people. This is where we need to provide as many opportunities as possible to help young people avoid long-term unemployment. Young people must have ready access to meaningful further education, ongoing vocational training or employment. Young people need quality careers counsellors to ensure they are made aware of which industries are growing and job rich and which industries are not offering good job prospects. Young people must leave school with basic skills that are valued by employers. We must have adequate amounts of TAFE and university places available for those who want to study, and we must also provide sufficient traineeships and apprenticeships.This brings me to an issue that I think we should be discussing more and that I have often discussed in my electorate, particularly with training providers. Not very far from my office is a wonderful organisation known as Inner Eastern Group Training. They replicate many group training schemes, I am sure, around the country. There is a fantastic woman there called Sharon Strugnell. She is a forward thinking person in a forward thinking and wonderful organisation. She has often told me that one of the biggest problems they are facing at the moment is encouraging young people to take up trade based apprenticeships, such as electrical, plumbing or cabinet-making apprenticeships.It appears the problems are varied. Young people are often not attracted by the idea of four years of study and work when they can do a 12-month so-called New Apprenticeship. From the employer side, they are often reluctant to take on a 16-year-old and give them the attention they need. They simply do not have the time to deal with some of the teething problems that come with teenagers fresh to the job market. Probably the most concerning element is the apparent lack of parental and general community support for apprenticeships. Whilst no-one would deny that vocational education and training is one of the keys to reducing long-term unemployment, it has led to a decline in trades work. Society has deemed it lowly to be a tradesperson. As I will tell anybody in this place, the only decent relative I have is my brother-in-law, who is a plumber. It is as if being only a cabinet-maker is somehow undignified. This is an elitist view and is both unhelpful and wrong. Not all young people want to be doctors or lawyers. Some of them will never fit into an office environment and prefer to work outdoors or with their hands. We will always need electricians, plumbers, cabinet-makers, et cetera. Many people prefer the flexibility of a 12-month traineeship. These jobs are generally available in the areas of hospitality and office administration. The irony is that, once a young person has completed their apprenticeship, they can usually set up a small business and their earnings will exceed those of most of their peers who have completed a traineeship or struggled through a generalist university course. It is a real shame that jobs such as these that provide a steady job path for many young people—in particular many working-class kids—are now shunned as substandard and perceived as worthless.Sharon Strugnell has told me that it is often the parents of children who are not willing to provide the transport and the family support needed to enable a young person to complete an apprenticeship. One of her ideas—undoubtedly shared by many people in her field—identifies a need to make apprenticeships more attractive to both young people and employers alike. One proposal is to provide a qualification at the completion of each year of the four-year apprenticeship, describing at the completion of each year what the apprentice has learnt and how it can be applied in a job setting. This would help raise the status of apprentices and apprenticeships alike and may even lead to young people being able to take up other jobs without needing to complete the four years study. As with all matters related to the scourge of unemployment, we need to be lateral in our thinking and I think this idea is worthy of consideration. Making apprenticeships more attractive to young people is part of the answer, but in order to really build our labour force we need to direct our young people into vocational training and education and, in some cases, into labour market programs.At the end of last year I was pleased to present the certificates to the individuals from Inner Eastern Group Training who were completing apprenticeships and traineeships. But I was very saddened to see that I was giving out only eight certificates for people who had completed their apprenticeships. It was a sad indictment—although not on Inner Eastern Group Training, because they are out there struggling to get the jobs. Last year they actually had more apprenticeships than they could find kids to take them up, because everybody has been turned off it. I think it is something that we really need to drastically turn our minds to.Labour market programs are where Labor's plans for a knowledge nation are so important. We need to approach skill shortages in an aggressive and targeted manner. We need to look at the mismatch between the skills many workers have and the ones we need and this can be done through vocational education and training, starting at primary school. At the other end of the scale, we also need to utilise the benefits of vocational education and training and labour market programs for the mature age unemployed. One of the recommendations in the Pathways to work document reads:Employers, unions and employment assistance and training providers, should work together at the local and regional level to develop employment assistance packages for workers facing retrenchment who are at high risk of long-term unemployment.Labor's spokesperson, Cheryl Kernot, has already announced that we plan to target training opportunities through our work force skill profiles, to assist at-risk workers before they become unemployed. We will work with employers, unions and training providers to appropriately train and retrain for emerging job opportunities. This will be part of Labor's overall continuum of training. As part of this approach we will ensure that a Labor government honours its responsibilities in reciprocal obligation contracts, by providing basic accredited training under programs based on a work for the dole scheme. This would be particularly useful in regional areas, where it is relatively easy to predict, for example, that the local timber or manufacturing industry is about to downsize or shut. Employers must begin to acknowledge that they have a responsibility to provide transitional assistance to their staff who in many cases have served them loyally for a number of years. The other area we need to look at is labour market programs. The federal government had cut these programs from $2.7 million to $1.5 million by 1998-99. Labor's Working Nation program introduced the concept of reciprocal obligation by promising the long-term unemployed either employment or training though a system of job subsidies. It was an expensive program that enabled many long-term unemployed people to retrain and re-enter the work force. Upon taking office, the coalition replaced these programs with the delivering of employment assistance via the government purchasing employment services on a fee for service basis, as described in the research paper `Changes to employment assistance' by Steve O'Neill of the Parliamentary Library. Through the Job Network, the coalition has sought to promote job matching. This has been done with a background of severe cuts to the old CES, now Centrelink, and a flawed tendering process.I do not need to go through the countless stories of the disaster that we have seen with Centrelink and Job Network providers. Not long after I took up office in Box Hill, I had a young lady come to see me. She had applied for 62 jobs in the last three weeks through a Job Network provider. Not one of those 62 jobs ever amounted even to a letter to say she had not got the job. They were just generating all this angst for this young individual that never resulted in any employment. She came to see me after three weeks, she came to see me after six weeks, she came to see me about a year later and she was still unemployed. She must have done thousands of job applications on the advice of the Job Network provider and out of them she had two interviews. This was just totally inappropriate. They were just fobbing her off, saying, `You match this job; you match this job.' In my previous employment before parliament I worked with the Finance Sector Union and had seen the major banks decide that the best way to make people redundant was to offer them outsourcing and job matching with `wonderful people like Drake Employment' and other such wonderful organisations! They would lock a whole lot of people in a room and say, `Here's a typewriter. Do a CV and that will magically get you a job.' Funnily enough, it never did. It is just a short-sighted way of fobbing people off and it is tragic, because these people are at their most vulnerable at that point in time and that is when they need the greatest assistance, and they are not getting it from this government. It is my view that we need to relook at the labour market programs and how they can be utilised to help compensate the many `casualties' that have been created from economic restructuring such as tariff reductions and public sector cuts. We owe it to this group of people, mainly the mature aged and those living in the bush, to help them overcome their displacement and retrain them.Just briefly, I would also like to make mention of the recent announcement by Labor's shadow minister for employment, my colleague Cheryl Kernot. Last week she announced that a future Labor government will ensure that the Australian Bureau of Statistics asks those who have been defined as `not in the labour force' plus those who are underemployed as well as those who have a job: `How many hours did you work and how many did you want to work?' With this information, governments can deal more honestly with the complexity and diversity of the unemployment problem. We do not know how many hours people want to work. We do not know precisely how many people are underemployed. We have very little idea how `efficient' the labour market really is. The reason we do not know these things is because we do not ask the right questions. The proposal will put policy makers in a better position to judge the true needs of not only those unemployed but those who are underemployed. I think this is most telling at a time when we know that there are lots of people in the work force who are chronically overemployed, who are working an excessive number of hours, often for no pay. This is a complete mishmash. The people out there often say, `What are we going to do about it?' I am sure there is no easy answer, but I think we need to look at the problem realistically. We need to ask the questions that will lead us some way to resolving this problem.In conclusion, I am sure all members acknowledge that there is no one solution to the unemployment crisis that has beset the Western world since the 1970s. As with all complex political issues, we must consult closely with the Australian people and look at a broad range of solutions. The traditional churn between Keynesian pump priming and economic rationalism has failed to produce a climate of full employment. As legislators, we must prepare to open our minds and our hearts to find the array of solutions to this blight on our society. I think it is about time some of us started to reconsider this issue, which is genuinely of interest to our local communities.20:31:0025188Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Tonight I am going to deal with an issue critical to a lot of people in my electorate. I will be speaking mostly about the importation of apples from New Zealand, which poses a very serious risk to apple and pear growers in terms of fire blight, which contaminates many New Zealand apples. Tonight I want to communicate to the parliament, the Prime Minister and ministers exactly how strongly people in my constituency feel about this issue.This is a critical issue for many apple and pear growers in my constituency. We are, in Australia, still a sovereign nation, and we should be able to choose what comes in and out over our borders. However, I think a lot of people in the Australian government today think that their chief role is to aid and abet the World Trade Organisation to get their way to be able to get New Zealand apples into Australia, despite the fact that this poses a very serious risk to the livelihoods of many apple and pear growers throughout Australia. In particular, tonight I want to communicate very frankly and directly the views of my constituents, the apple and pear growers in my electorate, to the parliament, to the Prime Minister and to those people present.I got in touch with the apple and pear growers in my constituency and asked them what they want this parliament to be aware of in terms of their views on the importation of New Zealand apples. I intend to read their comments directly into the Hansard tonight. I have a lot of comments to read out here, and I will do my best to get them all into the parliament, but I make this point before I begin: I have not heard a Liberal Party MP or a National Party MP speak out in this parliament about the very real risk that fire blight poses. I have yet to hear one of those people in this parliament stand up and say very plainly that they are against the importation of apples from New Zealand and that they will stand with their communities and the apple and pear growers in their electorates against the threat of disease, which stands to substantially damage the livelihoods of apple and pear growers throughout Australia.This is what David McKenzie from Two Macs Fruits in my constituency had to say. This is his message:Is the Government prepared to compensate all Australian growers if the disease destroys our industry? Some of us are third generation fruit growers and believe that it is hard enough now to make a living. If this is allowed into the country, growers will simply walk away from their properties. We have a clean & green image, so why ruin it? Why even risk it? Our export markets are at risk with thousands of jobs at risk and devastation of the fruit growing economy will flow on if the federal government lets them in. Say NO to NZ apples. This is what Hayden Witchell from the business Golden Lodge had to say:Fireblight could, and most likely will, if NZ apples come into Australia, destroy the livelihood built up over four generations. Once fireblight is here it can never be eradicated. Using measures such as streptomycin to try to control this virulent disease will destroy Australia's fruit growing industry's green, clean image. We should be proud to have this image, and it should not be risked. By the way, who will compensate us for the loss of our livelihood?That is a very good question, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is what Julie and Brian Witchell from Witchell's Golden Apple Orchards had to say:We have a wonderful fruit growing industry in Australia, producing top quality fruit, as well as employing many, many people. Our `small' business has employed 84 people in the last 12 months. If we go broke as a result of fireblight destroying our orchards, the unemployment rate goes up again. The `Powers that Be' need to recognise our industry and protect it, not sacrifice it for the sake of not upsetting the WTO.This is what John Wiadrowski from Wiadrowski Orchards had to say:There is no time like the present for Australia to capitalise on its disease-free status. More and more, the world is facing disease epidemics, and it is time that we, as a country, used this to our advantage ... The present problem with Mad Cow Disease in the UK only exemplifies these comments. Australia must not jeopardise its trade advantages on this issue and for that reason, we must not allow the importation of New Zealand Apples.This is what C. and M. Harding from Harding's Orchard had to say:As a small to medium family orchard employing 22 people each year, we are totally opposed to New Zealand importing apples into Australia. We grow apples and pears and feel that the risk is far too great, especially for pears. Australia's clean green image around the world is in jeopardy. The introduction of New Zealand apples could end in the same outcome as the foot and mouth disease in Britain at present.This is what Glynn Fankhauser from G.E. and E. Fankhauser had to say:Mr Howard, we implore you to carefully consider the plight of Aussie growers should we ever get the disease we are a hands on 4th generation family of apple growers who have seen fireblight in New Zealand orchards and would never like to see it here. We have a good clean green industry that is improving in quality and professionalism. We compete well overseas in markets with no subsidies on what will never be a level playing ground. Please do not destroy all that we have worked for by permitting this or any other disease into our country.Mr Deputy Speaker, there is still more to come. This is what Gavin and Samantha Bullen from N. and H. Bullen and Son in Drouin in my electorate had to say:As the fifth generation of Apple and Pear growers, with a great deal of our future riding on the industry, I am totally against the import of pome fruit from overseas under what has proven to be an inadequate protocol flawed in many areas. There is not one country that has imported pome fruit from a country that already has Fire Blight and not ended up with it themselves. If we import apples from New Zealand, we will be putting our $320 million a year apple and pear industry in danger. Our industry could be wiped out if fire blight spreads across the Tasman. In 1988 New Zealand protocol was rejected by the Australian government—I point out that it was a Labor government in 1988—because it was believed that there was insufficient research evidence available to show that Fire Blight could not be imported on mature apples. In 1995—once again, still a Labor government— they applied again, and in December 1998, AQIS rejected application on the grounds that the proposal was not consistent with “Australia's appropriate level of protection for the disease.” Now New Zealand have applied again, asking for “the least trade restrictive access while delivering the level of protection deemed appropriate by AQIS.”He makes the following point:But isn't it a fact that if a Fire Blight country can import their apples into a country, then they can also import Fire Blight.That is a very commonsense contribution. Heather Bullen, from Drouin, also had this to say:Why should Australian growers be faced with a watering down of protocol in the Draft Import Risk Assessment when previous protocols have not allowed the importation of apples and pears due to the fireblight risk? Australian Apple and Pear Growers should be able to continue to supply world markets with high quality fruit of a clean green status and should never be put at risk of the disease fire blight, which is world wide known to be such a devastating and extremely infectious disease to pome fruits. A classic case is currently before the world market places with foot and mouth disease in the meat industry in England and Europe because of relaxation of regulations.Heather Bullen also makes the point:Ask any world apple or pear grower who has had to contend with fireblight in their orchards and you will find that once fireblight enters the country you will NEVER get rid of it.That is a very good point. This is what Neil Bullen, who runs an orchard at Drouin in my electorate, had to say:As producers of apples and pears over four generations, with a large investment in the pome fruit industry, we are totally against the import of apples from overseas under what has proven to be an inadequate protocol which is flawed in many areas ... The implications for the Australian apple & pear growers would be devastation of many of Australia's growing areas. The Australian Government should be mindful of what is happening currently in the UK and Europe with regards to foot and mouth disease when we do not have strict quarantine controls.This is what Wayne MacDougall from Orchard Apples and Peaches up at Labertouche in my electorate had to say:I, Wayne MacDougall, do not want New Zealand apples in Australia. The risk of fireblight here would be devastating. We don't need the apples here, why risk the chance of having the disaster happen.And at the bottom of his message he says, in relation to this issue:Thank you Christian Zahra for making the effort to try and help us.To sum up how the apple and pear growers in my electorate feel about this issue, I would like to communicate to the chamber the view of the Gippsland Fruitgrowers Association Inc. I have received a letter from Helene Armour, who heads this association and is also the Southern Victorian Fire Blight Task Force leader. She says:Australia is one of only a handful of countries in the world that is fire blight free. Fire blight, the foot and mouth disease of horticulture is now endemic in 43 of the world's pome fruit growing areas.Gippsland's growers have had enough. We have proven our point that the DIRA—the draft import risk assessment—is scientifically flawed and therefore valueless. Our harvest is now in full swing. Our attention must be directed at picking, packing and selling quality fruit.That is the view of Helene Armour from the Gippsland Fruitgrowers Association. And those views I have quoted of the apple and pear growers in my electorate would be very typical of the views of the apple and pear growers right across Australia. I have tried tonight to give voice to the very legitimate concerns they have in relation to the very serious threat that fire blight poses to their businesses. A lot of these businesses have been built up over three, four and five generations. These are people who have shown a lot of guts, resilience, application and determination. They started without much and have been able to build great successful businesses, which they have passed from one generation to another and the next generation has been able to build on the success. That is the sort of effort which we should applaud, celebrate and hold up as an example of what we want other people in the Australian community to aspire to. Instead, what these people are getting for all the labour and hard work they have put into their businesses and the risks they have taken is a federal government which is an apologist for the World Trade Organisation, a federal government which is aiding and abetting the New Zealanders to get their apples—ridden as they are with fire blight—into Australian markets. As we have heard, the people who have written to me know very well that if you get fire blight into Australia you will never get rid of it. There will be a huge cost to Australia's image as a clean, green producer of apples and pears and also a huge cost to those farming families who have contributed so much throughout the years by taking the risks and putting in their labour and effort to build up these successful businesses which, in many cases, are very large employers in electorates such as mine.It is my contention that we should not have a situation where the federal government is aiding and abetting the World Trade Organisation against the interests of Australian apple and pear growers; rather, we should have a federal government which is proud of the effort that these people have put in over many years and is prepared to back them and defend all of the effort, the labour and the application that they have put into their farms. That is what this government should be doing right now. They should be saying that, if there is a risk of fire blight, we are not having those apples and pears from New Zealand coming into Australia. We are still a sovereign nation, and we have the right to protect our boundaries and to protect the people who live in our country from the substantial risk which exists in terms of the threat of disease from fire blight.As I mentioned before, we have people from quite a few different political parties in this place—there are people from the Liberal Party, the National Party and even an Independent in here—and who is speaking up on behalf of apple and pear growers? I have not heard the National Party talking about it much. I certainly have not heard the Liberal Party talking about it much. It has fallen to us in the Australian Labor Party to defend the interests of apple and pear growers and to make sure that we do not have New Zealand apples coming into this country which are going to pose a substantial risk to those people who have been prepared to take substantial risks in their own right as individuals and build up successful businesses over a large number of years and who have been able to employ people as a result of that risk and their application and hard work. We are the people who are prepared to stand with the apple and pear growers of Australia against this risk. We are the ones who are now putting the pressure on the federal government to make sure that apples from New Zealand which carry the risk of fire blight—as they do—are not allowed into Australia.I say to those people who are apple and pear growers living right across Australia—I think there are something like 43 federal electorates where the apple and pear industry is a very large employer—that the time has come to get active. They should be calling up their local member of parliament—whether they be Labor, Liberal, National or Independent—and saying to them: `What have you done for us? How are you representing our interests? What effort have you put in to make sure that the Australian apple and pear industry is protected from the risk that is associated with the importation of New Zealand apples?' If the answer is nothing, then those people should ask them again and pressure those members of parliament to come into the House and represent their interests. It has not taken a great effort on my part to get in touch with all the apple and pear growers in my electorate and let them know that I am giving this speech and to ask them if they wanted me to represent their interests in the remarks that I had to make tonight. The view is very plain from apple and pear growers in relation to this issue. In fact, I would say that there would be almost 100 per cent agreement—complete consensus—in relation to how everyone feels in the apple and pear industry about the very real risk which is posed by the importation of apples from New Zealand, carrying, as they do, the very genuine threat of the importation of fire blight into Australia. So we have absolute consensus from the apple and pear growers and we have some representatives who are prepared to come into this place and stand up on behalf of these people, to advocate on behalf of them and to put their case, and we have not seen anything yet from the Howard government. That is not good enough. The Howard government, which has just gone through the doldrums in terms of the electoral support they have, should not really be surprised at all if that continues as long as they continue to ignore the very legitimate and genuine concerns of groups like the apple and pear growers of Australia.These people have made an enormous contribution to Australia. They started with very little, they built successful businesses and they were able to build on those businesses throughout successive generations. These are the people about whom poetry has been written in Australia: the great risk takers. They are the people who have been prepared to go into parts of rural and regional Australia and get out there, break the land, bend their backs, take risks, endure hardship and build a great, thriving and growing industry in the apple and pear sector in Australia.Instead of doing nothing for these people when they face this very genuine risk from New Zealand apples, the federal government should be saying to them, `We will stand with you, we will support you and we understand that the risk which you are talking about is not one which you are imagining, is not one which you have made up and is not an issue about you guys getting a subsidy. We understand that there is a very real risk that many of your orchards and properties will be substantially devalued if we allow this disease into our country.'I reiterate clearly and passionately: Australia is still a sovereign nation. We should not kowtow to the likes of the World Trade Organisation. The role of the federal government is to stand with the apple and pear growers of Australia, not to aid and abet the World Trade Organisation and the New Zealand government to the detriment of apple and pear growers in Australia. (Time expired)20:51:0025192Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—Those of us who have been in public life for some time, like my friend and colleague here the member for Hinkler and yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, and even those who are somewhat younger in public life, like the member for McMillan, are very conscious of irony in politics and how certain myths build up. One of the stranger myths in the context of Australian politics at the moment is this view that in some way this present government are good economic managers and that one of the assets they have—many would say in public debate that it is their only asset—is that they are in some way good public managers. Frankly, this supposed credential of this government really does not stand up to close scrutiny.This country, blessed in all sorts of ways as it is, really ought to be much more economically successful than the indications now appear to suggest. In the energy sector, for example, we are producing in our trade of all fuels a surplus of $1 billion a month. We are a net oil exporter. The lower Australian dollar has produced all sorts of opportunities for this economy. I noticed in question time today that some debate was beginning to emerge about just how successful we have been in exports. However, the indications seem to be that for the December quarter there has been a significant increase in export revenue. Just seven months ago the economy seemed so strong that the Reserve Bank seemed to be intent on reining it in by their monetary policy. The situation now, however, really seems to be causing considerable concern. This economy, blessed in all the ways that it is, is beginning to show some disturbing signs. If we compare Australia's economic performance to most of our trading partners—with the notable exception of Japan—they are all growing somewhat more rapidly than us. Last year's figures for Singapore, for example, in our own region of the world, were showing that economic growth was being achieved at some 11 per cent. A country that is seen as being very comparable to Australia in its economic structures, Canada, was growing at four per cent. We are simply not presently achieving those sorts of figures in Australia under these great economic managers.In fact, the indication seems to be that we are about to achieve a home-grown slump. I say `home-grown' because our trading partners are not showing, by and large, the same sorts of concerning trends in their economic performances. In looking at who is responsible for these deteriorating circumstances, one really needs to sheet home the blame to these great economic managers we presently have!Of all the factors that one can look at in the Australian economy and its performance, one would have to say that the new tax system is, frankly, a bit of a disaster in terms of our comparative performance. The joke of this new tax system, in terms of the productive sectors of the economy was, I suppose, most appropriately highlighted by the paltry sum of $200 that the government very kindly was handing out last year to businesses in my electorate and in those of the members for Hinkler and Batman, to try to make a contribution, a gesture, towards the costs that the businesses, the productive sector of the economy, were incurring in meeting the burdens that this new tax system has imposed on them. We are all aware from our own experience that, in most instances, even relatively small businesses have been incurring costs of anything up to 100 times that $200 that the government handed out as its contribution towards them meeting the obligations of the new tax system. We are also aware of the immense loss of productive effort that goes into the compliance aspects of this new taxation system.Tragically, we are looking at the moment as if, in the six months to September at least, the estimated domestic final demand dropped by 0.5 per cent, and we are awaiting—possibly as early as tomorrow—new figures which are, frankly, going to be of considerable concern, I believe. The indicators are not good. Building approvals are down a further 3.7 per cent in January and down 40 per cent for the year—the biggest annual fall since at least 1984. I stress again that this is in a country that is blessed with massive economic strengths and massive advantages. The ANZ job ads figure was down a further 10 per cent in February and 24.1 per cent for the year—terrible figures.None of us on this side of politics are trying to talk down the Australian economy; we are just desperately concerned that this team of great economic managers are running the place down. Retail sales volume is down one per cent in the December quarter on a year earlier—the first time sales volumes have fallen, year on year, two quarters in a row since 1991. Full-time employment is down by over 87,000 people in just four months, the period during which Mr Costello, the Treasurer, upgraded his employment growth forecast to three per cent. Business investment was down 5.2 per cent in the December quarter. Building works were down 23.6 per cent for the year to December. Inflation is at a 10-year high. Business confidence is in deep trouble, and the dollar is at record lows. As I say, this is a strange business because of the mythology, the view that I suppose a few of the scribes of the press continue to push, that in some way this mob in power are good economic managers. The reality is that they have produced, by their poor economic management, a huge set of lost opportunities for this country. The broad ranging nature of the appropriations debate allows me an opportunity to get onto a subject that I had commenced to develop a little in adjournment speeches and the like, and that is the question of a serious injustice that a constitutent of mine faces in terms of his dealings with the military justice system. This constitutent, Mr Kevin Lee, is a gentleman who is highly regarded in my local community. He is a man who served Australia with distinction some 45 years ago, yet he finds himself in a very difficult situation in terms of getting the recognition he deserves from this country because of the operations of the military justice system.This is a matter I have taken up in the past—back in 1998, in fact, with the then minister responsible, Mrs Bishop—and, frankly, I got nowhere. What has occurred in more recent times is that there has been a very significant intervention on behalf of my constitutent by a very prominent member of Australian military circles, Rear Admiral Kennedy. Rear Admiral Kennedy is a man whom the government—and I think also former governments—have used regularly for a whole range of tasks. He was, for example, involved up until fairly recently in a review of a number of anomalies in the veterans' affairs system, and he has intervened very strongly in support of my constitutent.Let me read a letter that Rear Admiral Kennedy, a very distinguished sailor, wrote to the Chief of Navy on 9 February. I will not read the whole lot but I think it is important, given that there is a little more time on this occasion to address some of these issues, to read more of it. His letter to Admiral Shackleton reads:Dear David,Knowing how busy you must be what with East Timor on top of the normal heavy burden, I am loath to tax you further with another. It is however important in that it relates to an alleged miscarriage of naval justice, with respect to a former shipmate, forty five years ago. Perhaps the Director of Naval Legal Services could spare the time to look into it.The alleged miscarriage was brought to my attention some months ago as a result of the publicity ... given to the very recently completed South East Asia Review of medals, anomalies, etc. The former PO MTP Kevin Lee spotting the publicity approached me with the attached details of miscarriage which occurred as our ship was about to leave Kure, Japan after a nine-months tour of duty of Korea in 1955. It had to do with assault on a Japanese taxi driver.My own recollection of events are attached as a separate deposition together with other relevant documents provided by Lee. He claims he is innocent of a charge which led to his serving 45 days in a Japanese prison and which in turn led to his not receiving the Naval Long Service and Good Conduct Medal.I left SHOALHAVEN—that is the ship—almost immediately on return to Australia and in less than one month was navigating ARUNTA to the South China Sea as the first ship of the FESR.That is, the Far East Strategic Reserve. The letter continues:Thus, I had not known of Lee's incarceration in Japan.Personally I believe him to be innocent. However even if he was as `guilty as sin' the legal process (without defending counsel or first-hand witnesses) clearly constitutes a mis-trial. On that basis he remains innocent.He concludes: I am not happy with this `one'.Could it be `looked at' please.As I said, Rear Admiral Kennedy, a very distinguished former senior naval officer, goes to some lengths to set out the circumstances that he believes led to a serious miscarriage of justice towards my constitutent. He goes into some considerable detail, having provided it to the Chief of Navy, on the mistrial that occurred, including: the accused did not have a defending counsel, he did not understand the charge or the proceedings—they were conducted in Japanese—and no first-hand witness was available to provide identification. All this material was provided to the Chief of Navy—some of it had been provided earlier to the minister—and on 23 March last year Rear Admiral Kennedy got a letter from the Research Officer to the Chief of Navy, which read as follows:Your letter outlining an alleged miscarriage of naval justice ... is indeed an issue that requires closer scrutiny than perhaps was given in 1955. The circumstances surrounding the incident and actual trial appear to be unmerited—note those words, `appear to be unmerited'—in light of your information.This response was eventually followed up, however, in due course by a letter to my constitutent Mr Lee on 27 October last year. Amongst other things, the letter said:Unfortunately as the matter is now some 45 years old, and despite the evidence that you have provided—and the evidence that Rear Admiral Kennedy provided and that of some of his ship colleagues—it has been impossible to garner the type of information required to rebut the charges. As a result, and following advice from DLO—I presume that is the Defence Legal Office—I have been unable to conclude that your trial was improperly conducted and therefore cannot justify the overturning of your conviction.Likewise, I have reviewed the King's Admiralty Regulations as they pertain to the award of a LS&GCM.That is, the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal. The letter continues:As you have been previously informed, one of the criteria to qualify for a LS&GCM is that a member must have served for 15 years with continuous `Very Good' conduct and with previous character not inferior to `Good' in service qualifying for pension. As a result of your 1955 conviction, your Service Record was annotated to reflect `unsatisfactory conduct' ...The Chief of Navy finishes:I am truly sorry that I cannot give you the decision you seek. I have no power to alter the regulations that were in force at that time. Should any additional information on your conviction come to light, I would be very happy to receive it for further review.I would suggest that that is a particularly unsatisfactory response for a gentleman whom I know well and who is highly respected in my community, particularly in the returned services community in my electorate. As a man who is now ageing, he takes great pride in his service to this country. I emphasise again that he has a sailor of the distinction of Rear Admiral Kennedy actively supporting his case, suggesting that not only was the substance of the case incorrect but also that there were serious miscarriages of what we would expect as part of a fair judicial system in the conviction. As this gentleman enters an age in life where he is reflecting on these matters, and in his retirement is giving it greater consideration, he wants his name cleared and his honour restored. Yet we get this run-around and gobbledegook. Frankly, it is just not good enough and I take this opportunity to again call on the appropriate ministers to review the situation. If there is a need for some legislative change to restore justice, good stuff; let that be done. 7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch—Hear, hear!QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBE—I believe that this is a most important consideration, and I am pleased that the parliamentary secretary opposite, the member for Leichhardt, supports this. This is a matter that ought not be subject to partisan politics. It is a matter on which I think people on all sides of this chamber can agree. I am delighted that the parliamentary secretary is providing support in this.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch—Absolutely.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBE—In the short time I have left I wish to move on to another matter of local significance in my electorate—that is, some 17-odd hectares of Department of Defence land on the Maribyrnong River. Over recent decades, the Maribyrnong River has become a significantly enhanced recreational and environmental asset for the people of the north-western suburbs of Melbourne. With this one exception, this one parcel of land, it is an area that has almost uninterrupted community access along its banks to its recreational and environmental resources. But, in Essendon, this one particular parcel of defence department land is closed off to the local community, and the local community is anxious to get access to it.The defence department are prepared to dispose of this land, but there has been some nonsense spoken by them in recent times about wanting to extract the absolute maximum for this land by allowing residential development on it. It is simply unsuitable land for residential development. Apart from its proximity to some very beautiful stretches of river, in many parts it is also land that is badly contaminated because it is part of the land that during wartime, and probably right up to the early 1960s—certainly to the 1950s—was used for defence production associated with the Maribyrnong complex—the Department of Supply as it then was. So this land simply is not suitable for residential use but, with some modest cleaning up, it is suitable for recreational and conservation use. The local council is prepared to negotiate, and is in the process of negotiating, with the defence department to acquire this land at recreational land value, not at residential value.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—It should be a gift to the nation.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBE—Yes, it should be a gift to the nation. I thank the member for Batman for reminding me of that. At the last election, the Prime Minister did make some announcements about land fronting Sydney Harbour being returned to the Australian community for recreational use.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—He is Sydneycentric.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBE—Maybe he is Sydneycentric, but here is an area in Melbourne where the local community would certainly benefit. The local council is prepared to maintain it and look after it and, frankly, they are prepared to pay a little for it to the Commonwealth. But we have not yet finalised the matter with the defence department. I think this is very unfortunate. It does reduce the opportunity for the local community to enjoy this land. As I indicated, the land in many areas is contaminated and is simply unsuitable for other sorts of uses. If one were to try to have it for residential usage, one would have to put the dozers in to create a road into the site.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—The member for Leichardt would like that.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBE—He may, but even the member for Leichhardt, who was so helpful on the naval matter, would recognise that it is not very smart to put a dozer into contaminated soil and expose that soil to the elements so that it blows into the local residential community and into the river and ultimately contaminates Port Phillip Bay. BV5Adams, Dick, MPQK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBE—I take a more charitable view of the parliamentary secretary than does the member for Lyons because he was so supportive on the naval matter. Let me just conclude by taking this opportunity also to urge the Defence Organisation to accept that the community in the north-western suburbs of Melbourne for many generations now has provided the work force for probably the most substantial Australian defence production in this country. Certainly the Maribyrnong complex was, until very recently, the centre of a whole range of defence production. Really, it is not asking too much for that local community to now have the full cooperation of Defence in returning this land to the community for recreational use rather than trying to extract a few dollars by using it for a purpose which would cause an environmental catastrophe. Defence should ensure that this area of land—some 17 hectares—is returned to the community so that there is continuous public open space right along the Maribyrnong River, which is in fact the main river of Melbourne; the Yarra is purely a tributary of the Maribyrnong. If Defence were to do that, the local community would certainly benefit. (Time expired)21:11:0025197Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I would also like to reinforce the request by the member for Maribyrnong for the government to actually make a gift to the people of Melbourne. It would be appropriate if it announced that gift when the ceremonial meeting of parliament is held in Melbourne in May this year. I think the member for Maribyrnong has acknowledged that there have been gifts to the nation in the form of lands in recent times, but they seem to be a little bit Sydneycentric. In the not too distant future the parliament will actually travel to Melbourne to celebrate 100 years of parliament's existence. I think it is also fair to say that the area represented by the member for Maribyrnong is not what you would describe as one of the better-off areas of suburban Australia, especially suburban Melbourne. It is an area that has done it tough; it is an area that has pulled its weight in the best interests of the nation at large. It would therefore be appropriate for the new Minister for Defence to give serious consideration to this request, especially as he is a resident of Victoria. It would be a clear statement that he is prepared not only to face up to his national responsibilities but also, importantly, where appropriate, to assist Victorians in getting the same access to assistance that people in Sydney seem to get from the Prime Minister when it comes to gifts to the nation.I would also like to talk about why the Howard government is on the nose in regional Australia—something that the member for Leichhardt is well aware of. In doing so, I would like to draw to the attention of the Main Committee an interesting document that I came across the other day, and I want to go into that document in some detail. It is an historic document, and it has been previously tabled in the House and the Senate. It is not my document; the document belonged to the former shadow minister for regional development and infrastructure of the Howard opposition prior to the 1996 election. It details a Howard shadow cabinet decision that was made before they were lucky enough to win government in March 1996.It is interesting to note that before the Howard government came to office—and I know the member for Lyons would be interested in this—it actually had some interesting ideas for regional development and infrastructure. Up front, the shadow cabinet document stresses that the coalition should support the regional development effort. It is a very interesting document; I am sure the member for Lyons would like to cast his eye over the document later in the evening. After the Howard government was elected, one of its first acts, despite the submission to its shadow cabinet of the time, was to abolish the Office of Regional Development. It declared in a press release that there would be no role for a Howard government in regional development. I think it is fair to say that such a position is being exposed today for what it was then: short-sighted. It was suggested in the shadow cabinet document that existing state regional development groups be supported rather than Labor's regional development organisations. So the coalition abolished all support for regional development organisations. The problem was—as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, coming from Tasmania, a region that has a requirement for special regional assistance—that the Howard government did not put anything in the place of the Office of Regional Development when it abolished it and walked away from its responsibility to support regional development organisations. There was nothing left. There has been no support at all from the Howard government for regional development since March 1996.The shadow cabinet document also suggested that the coalition move some Commonwealth agencies out of Canberra. That would have been good, because it would have been a continuation of decisions of the Hawke and Keating governments to, for example, locate taxation offices in regional Australia and provide access to the Family Court and other court proceedings in regional Australia. You know this, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, because Tasmania was one of the beneficiaries of that deliberate government policy of taking services out to regional areas so that people in regional Australia would have access to them in the same way that people in the cities have. It would also, importantly, create regional employment opportunities. But what did the Howard government do, despite that statement in the shadow ministerial document? I think it is fair to say that they moved one Commonwealth agency out of Canberra, and that was the Office of Regional Development. That decision did not create any benefit, and nothing was put in its place to support regional Australia. All we had was a decision to abolish the Office of Regional Development. That is when the Howard government told the truth and declared that it saw no role for our national government in regional development. It is almost as if they thought, `All we need to do is abolish the Office of Regional Development and the Prime Minister can wear an Akubra and travel around regional Australia trying to suggest that he has a little bit of interest in the needs, aspirations and concerns of regional Australia.' Other than the Prime Minister wearing an Akubra on an irregular basis, the Howard government took the view that there was no requirement to give any support to regional activities. The shadow cabinet document did not stop there. It then identified a number of regional issues for the government to consider carefully. It makes very interesting reading, and I am sure the member for Leichhardt will find this interesting. It identified petrol prices—yes, petrol prices in regional Australia—as a major issue of concern. This was not identified today; this was identified more than five years ago in a document prepared for the Howard coalition shadow cabinet in the lead-up to the 1996 election. But what have we had for the past five years, despite the so-called identification of a problem? The government has deliberately lied to the Australian public and increased the price of petrol due to the GST. After denying it and denying it again, the Prime Minister has finally had to cave in to popular opinion and act—but only out of desperation—in light of the campaign run by the Labor opposition.The shadow document of the Howard coalition opposition has more to say. It says, for example, that we need more flexible labour market arrangements for regional areas. I must say that, since 1996, I have heard on occasion reference to that, such as at Christmas in 1999 when we had, following a major statement by the Prime Minister trying to regain a bit of momentum, yet another endeavour by the Treasurer to undermine the credibility and standing of the Prime Minister when he sought to put the spotlight on himself yet again by making those famous little statements like, `Yes, we have a special proposal for workers in regional Australia.' That was about cutting wages for workers in regional Australia. Despite, for example, the higher petrol prices and other costs of living that are experienced by people in regional Australia, we had the Treasurer, in accord with the thinking of this document, suggesting that we should have some very special labour market arrangements for regional Australia—in essence, cutting their standard of living by cutting their wages. We all know what that means. Regional Australia, in a reaction to the Treasurer's suggestion, made it very clear to the Treasurer what it means, and we soon had a back-pedalling. In the face of all the uncertainty around the coalition leadership at the moment, if the Treasurer actually gets enough guts to do what he is saying privately—that is, that he would like to challenge the Prime Minister—and he was lucky enough to win the next election, I wonder whether he would actually put in place what he mused about not so long ago with respect to cutting the wages and conditions of people doing it tough in regional Australia. That is very important. We have a Treasurer—part of the Howard government and, if anything, the pretender to the throne—who wants people in regional Australia to work for less than minimum wages. That is what our Treasurer's view is on how we should develop our regions: simply cut their wages. But there is even more. I go to the new Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business—a very good friend to the Treasurer—Mr Abbott, who also thinks that we should have more flexible labour market arrangements in regional areas.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams— The Abbott and Costello show.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—The Abbot and Costello show; you are right. Maybe leader and deputy—who would know? What is Australia in for—the Laurel and Hardy of the coalition government! What we find with the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is that he wants to cut the benefits of unemployed people in regional Australia if they refuse to move to the cities. Strange how that did not apply to the royal family—the Howard family—when they did not want to move to Canberra to live in the Lodge and accept their full responsibilities with respect to the office of the Prime Minister of Australia. There was no cut in wages for the Prime Minister and the royal family, just more and more renovations to ensure that they lived in the lap of luxury in Kirribilli House in Sydney.So I suppose it is fair to say that we should worry about supporting job creation in regional Australia under the Howard government, which just says to those people in areas that are unfortunately experiencing population loss, such as areas of Tasmania and a lot of other regional centres in Australia, `Look, we've got a special message for you. Don't worry about population loss in regional Australia and jobs; just move to the cities. That is the answer to all your prayers—just move to the cities.' I suppose in essence that is the stuff you get promoted within the Howard government. But, having walked away from the task of regional development and slashed support for the unemployed in regional Australia, we then have Minister Abbott, as I have just suggested, wanting to move people to the cities. But why would he want to move people to the city? For one very simple reason: there are no opportunities in regional Australia under the Howard government. That is because, at the moment, we have a government that has walked away and withdrawn from its responsibility to regional development. At the same time, having made that decision soon after its election in 1996, it has simply suggested to those who want to remain in regional Australia—because they do not fit the government's model for the development of Australia—`You must accept lower wages or, alternatively, move to the cities, because it is not for us as a government to actually provide new opportunities in regional Australia.' What a hide—to abandon regional development and to then suggest that they move to the city or take a pay cut! This is what people in regional Australia have got from the Howard government. No wonder the National Party leader—or the Liberal Party member in drag, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson—is in so much trouble. He has been a silent partner in this process of walking away from his responsibilities to represent, as he likes to make out, the needs and aspirations of people in regional Australia. We know the Liberal Party does not do that, but historically the National Party—and in its previous form, the Country Party—has sought to get through a message that they are the party of regional Australia. Well, the proof is in the pudding. There was a shadow ministerial document prior to the 1996 election which supposedly said that the government, on election, would do something for regional Australia. But all the decisions, utterings and actions of the Howard government since that election in March 1996 show that that was yet again a false promise and a false statement of what the coalition government would do when it actually came to support for regional Australia. I also want to refer to another issue—infrastructure coordination and planning. The document says:We need to approach infrastructure from both the grand vision and the more localised angle. The grand vision, as the document goes on to say, is for a:... long-term visionary Infrastructure Planning and Priorities Council ... for planning and coordinating long term infrastructure and the funding of it. A few months back the Labor opposition announced that we will establish a national infrastructure advisory council in government to improve planning prioritisation and financing of our infrastructure needs. It was widely acclaimed by the infrastructure community, which has been let down by the Howard government for five years. But I did not notice any government response. I did not hear, for example, from Senator Macdonald, a close friend of the member for Leichhardt, or the Deputy Prime Minister congratulating us. Perhaps they were, I suggest, a bit embarrassed that we have proposed from opposition something that the Liberal and National parties have not managed to deliver in five years. Labor's approach to infrastructure development does differ in some respects. The Howard shadow government cabinet document tells us that the government was not actually interested in delivering better infrastructure. The document says:... prior to the election we would announce a list of long-term visionary projects we would specifically like the Council to investigate and prioritise, for example: Darwin to Alice Springs Railway, turning coastal waters inland, rejuvenating the Murray-Darling Basin, Adelaide Airport.It goes on:This gives us the flexibility of announcing a lot of major long term visionary matters but without committing ourselves to actually proceeding with them.Interesting reading! It is clear that the government's ideas were based on nothing but promises which would not be delivered, and as we look back on five years of the Howard government we can see that promising what you cannot deliver has been a hallmark of this government. It promises something but then says that it is impossible. The Howard shadow cabinet document also revealed a proposal for a local government infrastructure program as part of a policy submission which claims to duplicate—what?—the Labor Party's local capital works program. This document has one element of honesty in it and that is when it points out that the Labor approach was enthusiastically supported by local government. What did the Howard government do when it came into office? The local government infrastructure program never saw the light of day. I have spoken a lot this evening about what the Howard government did not do for regional development. I would now like to remind the House of what the Howard government did do. When they got into government the Prime Minister asked the National Commission of Audit, the famous razor gang, to advise on regional development. The advice coming from the economic rationalists was predictable. They said, `Abolish the Office of Regional Development and sack the 220 public servants working in Regional Development.' So the Howard government acted on that recommendation. They said, `Walk away from the national role in regional development,' so the Howard government did. To demonstrate how much this policy was driven by the economic rationalists the minister's press release copies word for word the National Commission of Audit recommendation. The economic rationalists, the friends of the member for Leichhardt, also said that regional development programs, support for regional infrastructure and support for best practice should be abandoned. So that is what the Howard government did.I suggest, in conclusion, that the Howard government walked away from regional economies and regional communities and sided with economic rationalism over ordinary Australians. When the next election arrives people in regional and rural Australia will have a real choice—between a government that has abandoned them for five years and a Beazley Labor government committed to working with and for our regions. The Howard government regional development history is catching up with it very quickly, as the member for Leichhardt knows. When it catches up with the Howard government at the next election, I would not want to be in the shoes of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer or, for that matter, the member for Leichhardt. I will tell you why, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I move around regional Australia, I get one question from voters: `Will you ensure that, upon election, you will deliver the promises that you make in the lead-up to the election?' They then go through a litany of broken promises by the Howard government. Those promises in many ways are detailed in the document that I have referred to this evening—the Howard government's so-called blueprint for what it would do for regional development infrastructure. This blueprint was laid out and approved by the shadow cabinet of the Howard opposition prior to the 1996 election. The document promised tangible support for regional Australia. The Prime Minister promised prior to the last election that petrol prices would not increase because of the GST. The Prime Minister promised before the last election that small business would not suffer because of the GST. The Deputy Prime Minister promised that dairy farmers in regional Australia would not suffer because of dairy deregulation. The Prime Minister promised that he would govern for all Australians.In this appropriation speech, I simply say that the majority of Australians have had a gutful of the Howard government, its broken promises and its deliberate lies, as well as the misrepresentation of its policies before the 1996 and 1998 elections. The time has come for the Prime Minister to stop doing backflips and to bring integrity, honesty and a commitment to the proper machineries of government in the remaining days of the Howard government. We do not need any more McGaurans and Sharps; we need honesty and integrity in government.21:31:0025201Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—It is a pleasure to speak on these appropriation bills. Once again we are discussing the ways in which our tax dollar is being spent—how it is to be allocated, the costs involved with introducing a regressive tax such as the GST, the costs of putting this tax onto the Olympic tickets and the costs of implementing all this government's policy without appearing to do anything. Our economy is staggering, our wealth system is being obliterated and social security is being watered down to such an extent that we are almost putting people onto the streets to beg. Education funding now promotes the elite and forgets those in the state system. Where is this supposedly family-friendly government? Education is the means by which we secure a certain type of future for the nation. Now we are educating the elite and forgetting about the other 70 per cent of the population, who have just as much right to a decent education. The state education building program has been blasted. The existing buildings across the country need more than $1.5 billion spent on them to bring schools up to a standard that is adequate but still far behind those private schools. The money for those supposed goals that the minister keeps talking about—literacy and numeracy—is being wasted on managers and bean counters rather than being spent on additional teachers to ensure that children get proper access to education or to innovative programs to help those that are struggling. It is a sad time. It has been said time and time again that the environment in which we live and work throughout our life cycle sets the health risks, learning and behaviour for the individual and the family.One of the reasons we are having problems with our young people today is that the living environment has been well and truly twisted. Just take the recent spate of television programs. Shows like Survivor, Greed, The Weakest Link and The Mole all exploit the weaknesses of humans—their greed, their vulnerability and their need to be liked. These sorts of programs are just the pits. It is the worst of our American cousins' desire to humiliate people. I suppose the Australian culture adopts them because of our apparent need to knock down the tall poppies, but what does it tell our youngsters? It tells them that, in order to survive, you have to be mean, selfish, greedy and streetwise. I do not think that really personifies the Australian personality.Historically, we are very much team players. We enjoy our families, we want to look after our mates, money does not mean everything and it is the quality of life that matters. I do not believe these American programs do anything towards improving our lifestyle here or in assisting our children to get a better grasp of what life is all about. Television is a part of our culture and it is important that it develops the good things about our culture. Indeed, there must be comment on the issues but it should ensure that there is some fairness about the reporting on the development of themes. That is why I believe the Australian Broadcasting Commission is so important. Aunty plays a big role in education, and its quality and independence are crucial for a decent and thinking society. Cutting the funds and taking away the independence of such bodies as the ABC has an overall impact on the quality of the environment in which our children grow.It was the ABC who re-alerted me to a very good and interesting set of ideas being expressed by Dr Fraser Mustard. I met Dr Mustard in Canberra a couple of years ago. Dr Mustard is a Canadian who is the head of the early years task force in Ontario. I do not think that he is a hot mustard—I think he is just an ordinary Dr Mustard. He explained recently on the HealthReport on 6 November 2000 that health went along with human development and that it is the early development of the brain that is crucial to the ongoing wellbeing of humans. He said that a very sensitive period of brain development is the first three to six years of life, which means that the early years usually become important in terms of overall equity and health in the population, not just for the physical and mental health problems later on but also in terms of functional literacy and mathematical skills. He went on to describe one of his studies in Ontario. From that, he came up with some measures of how well or badly children were achieving. The measures considered were verbal skills at the age of four and five, which are predictors of subsequent literacy and which he also said were pointers towards juvenile delinquency.I must put in here my own theory about those who at a very young age watch television. When they get exposed to such things as SouthPark and other adult cartoons, it must have some serious effect on young children's mental ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Mustard goes on to say that it was not so much income that was significant in his studies but parenting. He said, however, that good parenting can be influenced by the environment in which the parents live. If they are struggling economically and have come from a generation of parents who have also struggled, the pressures become enormous. Those pressures may be because of a lack of finance or work, violence in the family or a lack of help at a crucial time—that crucial time being between when a child is born and when it starts school. Dr Mustard talked about establishing a kind of birthing centre where both parents would receive training as they began the process of being a parent. This is something that Australia was looking at before the funds fell out of health care. That part of education is now virtually ignored by the present government. It is an area that I believe is sadly lacking in attention. It is no good pouring funds into schools or even into private institutions if you have not first dealt with the early development of a child. In fact, perhaps we should start before the parent becomes a parent. Maybe there should be courses in parenting and what it means to bring up a child—both the joys and the pitfalls.We need to look at improving the opportunities for families to ensure that children have the best start in life, that there are resources made available to develop programs that will ensure children have an equal chance at full and varied education to cope with the changes going on so rapidly in their world. Another pet theory of mine is that children are not exposed to scientific theories early enough. Work in the curriculum of early learning could allow for more science to be part of our environment. Children are growing up with 30-second grabs of science on the news and no understanding of the way nature works. I do not believe that this government has bothered to consider these sorts of options. It talks about being pro-family, but what exactly does that mean? It is cutting all the government programs that have helped families in the past.There does not appear to be any direction or any vision anymore. The government is not leading; it is merely reacting. We are not starting to look at what the future should hold for Australia. It is a bit like those opposite trying to plug in a computer in this room. Here we are in a new century, celebrating 100 years of Federation, and instead of looking forward we have our sights firmly on the past. The major commentators of the day have not been concentrating on the future either. Everybody is so tied up in the present, the fortunes of the economy, the government and a few individuals, there seems to the very little discussion of what we should be looking forward to in the future.There are so many issues that we should be taking a lead on—whether it is improving health care, real health care or just the treatment of illness. We should be getting into preventative health: looking to see if we can bring down the costs of health care by keeping people more healthy. Likewise, education: we should not just be dealing with some ancient theory of compulsory years between five and 16 but the whole of life learning process between birth and when we leave this world. We need a government that has a vision. We need ministers who are prepared to run the gauntlet, to fight for the rights of Australians to have the quality of life that we all aspire to. We need some of our leaders to dream a bit. Okay, we might not be able to achieve it all, but even if we move a bit down towards community aspirations, surely that is better than doing nothing.No wonder the electorate are jaded; no wonder they are cynical. They are saying that this government is not listening. `It is not caring how government policy affects us,' they say. We have seen this with petrol prices and the backflip, we have seen it with the BAS statements and today we are seeing it with this ridiculous situation of the two per cent clawback on pensioners' incomes. Running a responsible budget is important. But running a government surplus just in case is a nonsense and makes people uneasy about their taxes—where their taxes are going and what they are going to be used for. They have no control of them whatsoever. All this is evident from the sale of government assets—such as part of Telstra and a whole pile of other government agencies—and a lot of the work that is now being outsourced, which the consumer has very little control over. In our own state of Tasmania we have suffered from such action. Our population is shrinking because of services to our state that have moved out. Headquarters of banks and insurance companies have gone, and so have many branches, particularly in country areas. Services including pensions and other benefits, health, family courts, and communications—and the list continues to increase—have all disappeared. Services have been ripped out of Launceston and, with community pressure, partly put back in.It is left to the local communities, of course, to pick up the pieces. These communities, as in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker, have been picking up, and they are keeping the ideas flowing. These people are holding their communities together, and the government should be listening to them. Some of these people have a vision for the future. In Tasmania, they have worked hard to survive, and they are now asking the big questions in their communities: how to deliver services with less in the way of funds, how to make life work, whether to keep our small hospitals, how to provide vocational training for young people and how to help others to develop employment out of new ideas.Quality of life is certainly what people expect, and that is not measured in financial terms. A better measure would be happiness—if we could in some way measure that. There has been work done on the degree of happiness, particularly in young people, and it is this measure that is used to see how satisfied or otherwise a young person is with his or her life. Work on suicide in young people has developed this measure. It is about a young person's lack of happiness with their relationships, with their families, with their possessions or with their ability to achieve, to get a job and to keep up with their peers. That plays a role in this terrible situation.There are other issues. As I mentioned earlier, there are cuts to the ABC. The ABC is a part of Australia. It helps develop a culture for Australia. It has played this role. It has been cut and is continuing to stagger along without being given the resources that it needs to become efficient in new technologies, like the digital technologies. Regarding the situation in regional Australia and the argument put forward by the member for Batman, we know that the Howard government went to the people in 1996 with a platform on regional development. As soon as they were elected, they abolished the Office of Regional Development. It went down from something like 260 people to five—enough people to write the correspondence for the minister and that was all. Of course, that is now what is being reaped by the National Party in regional Australia. There has been no development of regional policy by the government, and they have tacked stuff on as they have run into difficulties.We had the Treasurer arguing that one way to lift regional Australia was for people in regional Australia to take a lower wage. He said that regional Australia could survive, that South Australia could cut wages by 20, 30 or maybe 50 per cent and that they could attract development and economic activity. That is a pretty poor way to treat regional Australia, but that was a proposition put forward by the Treasurer. Of course, many other services in regional Australia have been cut back and withdrawn.In Canberra this week we had the Rural Health Conference, with people from the health service delivery area in regional Australia coming to look at better ways of delivering those services, to look at their problems and to work through some of their problems. I had the opportunity of meeting some of them today. They certainly give you some enthusiasm for the way they go about their business. We now have an organised lobby group within this area to help develop and increase opportunities in Australia. Also today we talked about the cutbacks made by this government to pensioners and its clawback of two per cent of the four per cent CPI increase for pensioners. While this government increases its funding to private schools, while it refuses to tax people who can set up family trusts to get the advantage of paying less tax than other people do even though they have a bigger income, it can claw back from the pensioners of Australia and from other benefit recipients two per cent of a four per cent cost of living increase. That means very bad leadership.I understand that leadership is a bigger issue in the coalition parties as well. I understand that the Abbott and Costello team could be talking about a Melbourne-Sydney set-up and that the Prime Minister is starting to get worried about his numbers in the party room. I do not know how the honourable member on the other side of the committee will seek to protect her evolution into junior minister status by cutting a deal with one or the other when the numbers start to fall. It will be interesting to see how she reacts.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs Gallus—I find that absolutely offensive and I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is a standard of behaviour in this chamber of making the sorts of comments in Mr Adams's statement, but I do not find it acceptable in the parliament for someone to say they believe the member opposite is going to `cut a deal' to protect her status. I cannot see why we have to have those sorts of slurs in this committee, I really don't. If we want to have a slanging match across the floor, go ahead, but I suspect the Deputy Speaker would rather sit over a committee that did not have a slanging match going ahead all the time.BV5Adams, Dick, MPCU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs Gallus—And you are a big buffoon who has not got a clue about what is going on. 10000Quick, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Order! BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams—You are a nasty silly little woman.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs Gallus—You are a nasty big fat man—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The parliamentary secretary has made her point—CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs Gallus—And you don't know a thing except to start a slanging match!10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I warn the parliamentary secretary. She has made her point. The honourable member for Lyons' time has expired.21:51:0025205McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I am very pleased to be able to talk tonight on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2000-2001, the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2000-2001 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2000-2001. Before I commence bringing the voice of the people of Stirling into the parliament and sharing with the government their concerns about the lack of an adequate coastguard in Australia, I would like to touch for a moment on the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2000-2001. In the second reading speech on that bill, the minister says that it provides additional revenues for agencies to meet expenses in relation to grants to the states under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. I am very pleased at the recent win by Dr Geoff Gallop and the coming of a Labour government to Western Australia, and I look to that appropriation bill to provide the kind of funding and resources that Western Australia needs to rebuild the services—the health, education and community services system—which have been so depleted over the last couple of years. This, again, has been a source of great anxiety and angst for the people of Stirling. Dr Geoff Gallop's win makes my job a lot easier because I am now working with state colleagues to implement a Labour vision of how Australia can be better for all. The issue I mainly want to talk about in relation to these appropriation bills is the need for a properly developed coastguard. In an excellent Parliamentary Library research paper entitled The developing policy pressures in Australian coastal surveillance, under the heading `major issues', the point is made that:There is no overriding jurisdiction covering enforcement of law in maritime areas under Australian control. Rather, legislative authority lies with of a number of Commonwealth and State agencies that hold the responsibility in general, whether enforcement is required on land or water. The jurisdictions reflect Australia's history of federalism and do not necessarily coincide in any logical way.It then goes on to say:The most important characteristic of the Australian coastal surveillance system is that there is no agency with the core role of and, thereby, legislative authority for overall law enforcement in the nation's maritime jurisdictions.It further states:Coastwatch, the organisation which coordinates most coastal surveillance activity reflects this situation.That brings me to the vision of the people of Stirling, which is also the vision of the Australian Labor Party—that is, the need to develop a cohesive, modern, integrated system. I am pleased to say that a Beazley Labor government will establish an Australian coastguard that will have overall responsibility for our coastal surveillance and protection. Labor is committed to improving Australia's coastal security. The current arrangements are clearly not working. People regularly ring my office stressed and upset whenever they see people-smuggling boats arrive, because the majority of them have arrived off the north-west coast of Western Australia. They are concerned that we seem to be so open to incursion not just by people smugglers but also by the fishing fleets of many nations that come down into the Indian Ocean into Western Australian waters to fish inside our economic zones, in breach of not only Australian law but international law.People are also concerned about the open access to the coast for drug smuggling. There have been many instances of yachts bringing in drugs. When the various authorities have conducted surveillance or have targeted people suspected of bringing in drugs, they have been able to successfully find some of these drug hauls and deal with the people through the legal system. Again, it raises anxieties in the hearts not only of Western Australian people but of other Australians. But it is on the west coast that a lot of these activities have been discovered and chased up. Despite the efforts of Coastwatch, people are concerned that it is happening more and more regularly. There are also the poaching of pearls and quarantine related issues.People feel that Australia needs a coordinated approach to address the difficulties I have just mentioned, and I support their thoughts on this matter. Labor wants to establish an Australian coastguard and has asked the government to seriously consider as a model a coastguard that is responsible for conducting coastal surveillance and meeting Australia's maritime protection needs, as well drawing together the resources, programs and activities currently undertaken by the Australian Defence Force and other agencies. I point out that there are a number of agencies involved and, as the library research paper points out, the client agencies are: the Australian Fisheries Management Authority; Environment Australia; the Australian Customs Service; the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; the Australian Federal Police; the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service; the Great Barrier Marine Reef Marine Park Authority; the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; the Department of Defence; and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. This is a large number of client agencies and there is sometimes difficulty with their coordination. Coastwatch, which coordinates most coastal surveillance activities, has no legislative base of its own to cover its functions. This has led to difficulties and coordination failure, one of these being the surprise arrival of two refugee boats on the east coast in 1999, despite the existence of prior information. How did this surprise happen? It happened because of a breakdown in the transfer of information between these many agencies with responsibility but with no coordination. In a recent audit, the Australian National Audit Office found the intelligence framework had not worked as well as expected and that some agencies had not continued to develop their intelligence capacities as required in earlier ministerial directives. With such a large number of client agencies, it is easy to see that coordination and passing of information becomes very difficult. What the Labor Party wants, and people tell me they want, is a coastguard that will have primary responsibility for the maintenance and enforcement of Commonwealth maritime law, that will have a full range of law enforcement powers so that it can act as a maritime police force in peacetime, and whose role will extend beyond monitoring the coastline. It will be charged with the detection, surveillance and law enforcement response to people smuggling, drug smuggling, illegal fishing, search and rescue operations, and maritime safety. In peacetime, an Australian coastguard would be a maritime police force within the Justice and Customs portfolio. The operation commander would be seconded from the Australian Defence Force, and in times of declared emergency or times of war the Australian coastguard would form a fourth arm of the Australian Defence Force and have sufficient appropriate training and a command and control structure to enable it to be readily transferred to the control of the ADF.This framework has been developed by looking at what is currently in place—seeing the gaps and the ad hoc, uncoordinated initiatives that have failed to address the situation—and also by a very close examination of the role a coastguard should play. To put an act through parliament to establish the role, you would have to give such a coastguard the primary responsibility for the maintenance and enforcement of Commonwealth maritime law. It would also need to liaise and cooperate with all relevant state government agencies. The Australian coastguard's role could also extend beyond monitoring the coastline, into the surveillance, detection, and law enforcement of all those other issues such as people smuggling, drug smuggling, illegal fishing, search and rescue operations and maritime safety. There is also the issue of having responsibility for oil spills and environmental protection and pollution control. It could respond to the increasing need for surveillance in our southern waters to prevent illegal fishing and environmental degradation. An Australian coastguard would be a well-trained, well-equipped organisation with the command and control structure that would allow it and its officers to easily integrate with and come under the control of the Australian defence forces in times of a declared emergency or war.This is an appropriation bill and there seems to be in the government coffers a very good surplus, so it is not that the people of Stirling or I am asking for anything that would cause an impost on the budget or the budget to go into blow-out. There seems to be quite a good financial surplus, so funding and resourcing of an Australian coastguard is a possibility. But in looking at that we would need to look at the current patrol boat fleet. The current fleet of Fremantle class patrol boats is used almost exclusively for coastal surveillance and patrols. These vehicles will not be suitable for or capable of this task into the next century. They are too small and too slow. They are coming to the end of their economic life and require expensive refitting if they are to be retained in service. The government is aware of this and has come up with a scenario. Now is the critical time for decisions regarding the future of the patrol boat fleet. The government should not miss this excellent opportunity to reconsider its plans, its scenario for a `life of type' extension program for the fleet. Instead of pursuing this option, the government should be taking the opportunity now to replace the Fremantle class patrol boats with purpose-built vessels capable of performing a variety of coastguard tasks. Opportunities for Australian business in outfitting and equipping the Australian coastguard will emerge with the reconfiguration of the existing surveillance fleet, and of course in Fremantle we have an excellent boat building industry as well as a boat repair and maintenance industry. Boats come from all around Australia into Fremantle and the coast of Cockburn there to have fit-outs and maintenance done. There are other places in Australia, too, that have boatbuilding industries, but I can talk with familiarity about the wonderful industry we have in Western Australia.A new fleet of purpose designed vehicles could be constructed to civil standards at a cost comparable to the costs of a total refit of the Fremantle patrol boat fleet. Technological advances over the last decade allow the use of civil navigation communication and surveillance systems for the vessels that minimise costs but maximise capability. Such vessels would be larger and faster than the Fremantles, and would be capable of being armed as appropriate. Australia also needs the capacity to undertake deep water surveillance of the Southern Ocean to protect our economic interests in these fisheries. The government has allocated funds to lease ship time for this purpose—a commitment that will be maintained by a Labor government but integrated into the responsibilities of the coastguard. In addition to an appropriate patrol boat capability, the Australian coastguard's maritime assets will include the following vessels currently used by Customs: four fast outboard vessels currently used by Coastwatch in the Torres Strait and six small capability launches that are currently being replaced by eight new 38-metre ocean-going patrol boats.There is also the issue of aerial capability. The coastguard's aerial capability will initially continue to be supplied under current civil contracts and the arrangements whereby the RAAF supplies Orion surveillance hours to Coastwatch. This of course would require agency cooperation—something lacking at times in the current model. But a strong relationship between surveillance intelligence and response is critical to an effective coastguard system. Defence has a vital role to play in enhancing the intelligence and operations capability of the Australian coastguard. The Australian Defence Force currently makes an annual contribution to Coastwatch of 1,800 Fremantle patrol boat days and Orion surveillance flights and provides the Director-General of Coastwatch and liaison staff.Existing and emerging sophisticated defence surveillance assets will continue to be an invaluable resource for the Australian coastguard. To achieve best coordination of resources and maximum efficiency, the coastguard's intelligence and surveillance headquarters will be jointly located with one of the Australian Defence Force's current national surveillance centres, such as Headquarters Northern Command. The coastguard will complement the Royal Australian Navy in times of conflict, carrying out coastal surveillance and protecting our shores against incursions. An act establishing the Australian coastguard will authorise coastguard vessels to undertake combat duty when placed under ADF command.The Australian coastguard will have responsibility for the coordination of search and rescue operations currently undertaken by AUSSAR, which resides within the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, and various volunteer groups. The coastguard will also have a volunteer and entirely civil reserve component, which could be called the Australian Auxiliary Coastguard. Membership would include those of the 3,000 members of existing volunteer search and rescue groups who agree to appropriate accreditation and service obligation arrangements with the Commonwealth. This group could provide a localised search and rescue service and could be linked through command and control relations and standardised training to the coastguard. This group could represent a vital reservoir of expertise and commitment. This component will not transfer to the Australian Defence Force in times of war or declared emergencies. Under Australia's current coastguard surveillance arrangements—to be replaced by the establishment of a new Australian coastguard—Coastwatch, a branch of the Australian Customs Service, is responsible for Australia's civil coastal surveillance. Coastwatch conducts surveillance and response operations according to the competing needs of client agencies and departments—and they are the ones I mentioned before. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority, AFMA, AQIS, ACS, Australian Search and Rescue, the Australian Defence Force and various state departments conduct coastal surveillance and response operations independently of Coastwatch.The transition to an Australian coastguard would mean that the coastguard would take over Commonwealth maritime policing responsibility. It would be the agency's core activity and it would entail the transfer of the following types of responsibility to the Australian coastguard: the enforcement of all Commonwealth maritime law, including for people-smuggling, quarantine, illegal fishing, customs, drugs smuggling, coastal watch functions and resources.In 1999 the Minister for Trade went to Singapore and awarded a company from my home state of Western Australia, Geraldton Boat Builders, the contract to supply 20 vessels to the Singapore police coastguard, drawing attention to Australia's expertise in high value manufacture. Surely the minister would recognise that Australia has both the need and the ability to produce coastguard vessels for our own country and not just for other countries. We have the expertise, we have the vision, we have people's angst to deal with, we have practical problems and political problems. But, if we work together in a very focused, bipartisan way on this issue, we would have a solution that would be a politically palatable one to all parties. It would be a solution for the community and would assuage the angst and anxiety that get expressed regularly in talkback radio programs, newspapers and other media, and through my office—and, I am sure, other people's offices. I commend this vision, this model, to the government and will be looking in the appropriation bills for money to be allocated for the implementation of this vision.22:11:0025209Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—In the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2000-2001 and associated legislation, I want to address two quite diverse subjects. The first is to look at the institution of the parliament itself, and the second is to talk about future directions in Australia's overseas aid program. As one looks around our institutions, it is possible to identify something of a paradox: politics and government have become the most conservative parts of our society, lagging well behind the rate of innovation that one would find in information technology sectors and in the work of business and social entrepreneurs. Some people say that governments fall these days when they implement too much change. In fact, I think the converse is true: governments that fail to keep pace with the rate of change in society and its economy are overwhelmed. They fall, much as the Howard government will fall, because they have been paralysed by the rate of change and have not acted to help their citizens respond to change.The Howard government is suffering from a complete collapse of trust by the electorate, and this relates to the Prime Minister's promise to restore trust in the institution of the parliament. We are debating parliamentary appropriation bills, and so it is appropriate to look at what sort of public trust now rests in the Australian parliament. The Prime Minister promised to implement and introduce an independent Speaker, yet the three office holders under this government have all been highly politicised people, people who have held highly political jobs before they took the Speaker's chair. Bob Halverson was the Liberal Party Whip before he became Speaker; Ian Sinclair was a former National Party leader before he became Speaker; and Mr Andrew was also a Liberal Party Whip. These were highly political jobs, highly political people moving into the Speaker's chair, totally contrary to the Prime Minister's promise to introduce an independent Speaker. I say that the parliament desperately needs an independent Speaker. The parliament also needs to modernise the standing orders to improve question time, to move beyond its horse and buggy type of structure and actually move into the information age. There is so much that can be done to improve the interaction and standard of second reading debates.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPK26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—The member for Hindmarsh is a perfect example of what needs to be done to improve standards, given her behaviour here this evening. We also need to deepen the quality of information and the standard of debate in parliamentary democracy. We need to look seriously at Internet forums and the introduction of direct democracy, so that people will feel more empowered by the process of parliamentary democracy. This is not a party political observation so much as one that is relevant for all MPs. There would not be anyone in this place who is not disheartened by the level of public distrust in the institution of the parliament generally. The Prime Minister is in the hot seat at the moment; he is in the gun because he promised to do something about it—and, in truth, trust has collapsed in this government and the institution of the parliament.There are remedies available—I have tried to outline some this evening—and any MP who thinks they are not important is just blind to the truth, blind to the public reality and blind to the feeling in the electorate that the institution of the parliament has grown distant from the concerns and values of the Australian people. We need to get much closer to those concerns and values, and modernising every part of the parliamentary structure is all important.It is also important to lift standards of public administration in this country. I can give an example very close to the Howard cabinet. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet, Senator Heffernan, has abused his parliamentary entitlements through his bizarre obsession with homosexuality. It is a standing joke around this building that the senator is personally obsessed with all things homosexual and that he uses his office resources to keep files and run vendettas against homosexual citizens. He has turned his office into a star chamber to satisfy his own homophobic and bigoted views. Unfortunately, this is more than a joke: it is a damning commentary on the Howard government and its attitude to human rights. It is a damning commentary on a government that is willing to tolerate such a person as its cabinet secretary. Senator Heffernan is unfit to serve in such a position. The senator regards homosexuality as a sickness; in fact, he is the one who is quite sick and who needs help. The Prime Minister should not ignore this problem any longer.There is much to be done to lift parliamentary standards and improve the quality of parliamentary democracy. In the micro, we should address the appalling behaviour and abuse of entitlements by people like Senator Heffernan. In the macro, we should fundamentally reform the standing orders and the structure of the parliament itself.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for Werriwa should be careful to structure the points that he is making about the senator in ways that would not require a substantive motion.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—I am now moving on to the second matter that I wanted to address this evening, that is, to examine the future direction of Australia's overseas aid budget. Let me relay to the House a true story from my recent visit to India. New Delhi is one of the poorest cities in the world, with almost four million people living in abject poverty. Fortunately, AusAID is supporting some wonderful poverty alleviation projects. One of them is ASHA—Action for Securing Health For All. Under the leadership of a true social entrepreneur, Dr Kiran Martin, this project is achieving results through the creation of social capital. It is rebuilding the bonds of community and cooperation through the empowerment of women's groups and the provision of community health services. In January I visited a reformed slum in Delhi and witnessed first hand the power of ASHA's work. In this country, of course, we from time to time talk seriously about the issue of poverty. In India, it adds a whole new dimension. One just struggles to contemplate the seriousness of their problem. A city like Delhi, with four million people living in abject poverty, has conditions beyond any decent human standards, is certainly beyond anything that is experienced in our nation. But ASHA, with the support of AusAID, is getting results, and it is an important lesson for poverty alleviation and the direction of our aid project. The local women's group on my visit explained to me the foundation of its success. It is training local residents in the provision of basic health care, it is mobilising community effort to create a decent drainage and sanitation system, and it is securing property rights and access to reticulated services; and, most of all, the work of ASHA is giving people the skills and self-esteem to find work in the real economy.I also learned about the obstacles to poverty alleviation. One woman told me how she did not want to upgrade her home too quickly as this would encourage the local policemen and politicians to seek a bigger backhander. Other residents told me of how they were forced to pay bribes to government officials just to keep their access to the power system. Case by case I heard of the entrenched and sickening level of corruption across all levels of government in India. Stories such as these convey a huge message to those of us committed to social justice. The true enemy of the poor in Third World nations is the corruption of the state. No-one I spoke to in the slums of Delhi said that they were being exploited by McDonalds or Coca-Cola, but they each had an example of government corruption and expressed their hatred of government officials.The biggest debate in Delhi at the moment concerns the privatisation of the power grid. Unlike similar debates in Australia, it is not an ideological question or an argument between the left and the right. The key policy goal is to end the corruption of the electricity system, whereby 40 per cent of Delhi's power is currently lost to illegal connections. The public sector has created a black market for electricity even though this causes blackouts for its bona fide customers. No private sector company, of course, could tolerate the loss of 40 per cent of its product; hence the commonsense argument for privatisation.India is a good example of the need for economic reform in the Third World. After centuries of invasions and colonialism, India foolishly adopted the Soviet economic model in its post independence decades. The impossibility of central economic planning added to the level of poverty and nurtured the growth of government corruption. There was very good summary of this in the HindustanTimes on 8 January in an article by Amulya Ganguli, who wrote:... `socialism' ... has served the Indian political classes well. The word carries a pro-poor ring which is helpful to the parties at election time. All that they have to do is to allocate certain amounts (in crores, of course) for `poverty alleviation' and not bother if only 15 paise out of every rupee meant for such purposes reach the poor, as Rajiv Gandhi once pointed out. The remaining 85 paise apparently keep the wheels of the election machinery of each party—and the personal budgets of politicians—well-oiled. As does the gratefulness of the industrialists who are protected from any threat of competition by high tariff walls—in the name of the poor. Like the criminal-politician-bureaucrat link in the political field, the industrialist-politician-bureaucrat link, along with the subsidy raj favouring affluent farmers, has long kept the Indian economy in a crippled state with its snail-paced Hindu rate of growth. Only since 1991 has a program of economic liberalisation been in place in India. Already, this is achieving impressive results, including the growth of a substantial information technology sector. India desperately needs to develop a large middle-class with the spending power to create service sector jobs with poor. This cannot be achieved without economic openness, market liberalisation and large national investments in education and training. Further afield, over the past three decades the development of trading economies in East Asia has lifted 150 million men, women and children out of abject poverty. The countries which have been unable to break the poverty cycle—most notably in Africa, Latin America and the old Soviet Union—are those which have been most resistant to free trade and clean economic institutions. This explains the income gap between the world's richest and poorest nations: those which first embraced economic reform have reaped the greatest benefits. Nations which adopted the Soviet model or tolerated systemic economic corruption now have the highest levels of poverty. Internationally, the evidence is clear; the verdict is in. Poverty can be beaten providing governments open their economies to free trade and market based growth, invest heavily in education and training, respect the rule of law and eliminate corruption, build stronger civil societies, value social capital and, finally, mobilise the skills of social entrepreneurs—the sort of people I saw working for ASHA in the slums of Delhi.These findings from my visit are reinforced by an excellent new book on poverty alleviation in the Third World by the Peruvian development expert, Hernando de Soto. It is called The Mystery of Capital. De Soto's main point is that while there are some assets in Third World nations, they are unable to be converted into decent property rights. Without property rights, poor people find it very hard to trade effectively, to build networks of information and commerce and to enter the real economy—that is, to get themselves out of poverty and into small businesses and jobs. Property rights allow people to trade and to share opportunities in the market economy. Without property rights, they are trapped in a cycle of poverty. Let me give an example to the House from de Soto's conclusions. In talking about Egypt he writes:... the person who wants to acquire and legally register a lot on a state-owned desert land must win his way through at least 77 bureaucratic procedures at 31 public and private agencies ... This explains why 4.7 million Egyptians have chosen to build their dwellings illegally ... If, after building his home, a settler decides he would now like to be a law-abiding citizen and purchase the rights to his dwelling, he risks having it demolished, paying a steep fine and serving up to 10 years in prison.Egypt is by no means an exception. In Peru, building a home on state owned land requires 207 procedural steps at 52 government offices. In Haiti, obtaining a lease on government land—a preliminary requirement to buying—takes 67 steps. The bottom line, sadly enough, is that all this regulation—all these obstacles to the acquisition of property rights—is very closely associated with bribes and corruption. There is a positive correlation between the level of regulation and the extent of bribes and corruption in these nations—not only in India, Egypt, Peru and Haiti but in virtually every Third World nation across the globe. Again, the bottom line is very clear: the true enemy of the poor in these countries is the state and the systemic corruption of government. For many on the extreme left of politics, these conclusions are not welcome. They are contrary to an ideological hatred of market economics. They contradict the current militant campaign against globalisation. In effect, they demonstrate the disconnection between the rhetoric of these left-wing groups and the reality of poverty alleviation. If the true enemy of the poor is the corruption of the state, economic reform is actually part of the solution.The lessons for Australia's aid program are compelling. We need to identify and support the work of social entrepreneurs like Kiran Martin and ASHA. We need to back success. What matters in poverty alleviation is what works in practice. Backing successful projects is all-important. It is very hard to build public support in Australia for a bigger aid budget. The only way we can build support for these projects is to demonstrate success to the Australian people. The sad truth is that there is a lot of corruption in these nations, and aid funding is susceptible to those unhappy processes. But identifying successful projects and seeing people working together, building cooperation, building social capital at a local level and backing their success is the very best way to run our aid budget. We need to build a record of progress so that this parliament can demonstrate to the Australian people that every single dollar of aid funding gets results. I am very confident that, if we went down this path of identifying and supporting social entrepreneurs, we could build a bigger aid budget. We could demonstrate to the Australian people that our projects are getting results and that they deserve extra funding. We talk in this country about a fair go. The fairest go that we can give in the use of our national resources is to do things for people not only in our own country but also in other countries who are living in conditions of abject poverty.The first step in addressing poverty is social: building cooperation and networks of trust in local communities. This is the best role for our aid budget: small, targeted grants that get results. I do not support a return to big infrastructure projects. We should leave the building of roads, bridges and other infrastructure to national governments. Our aid budget should be specifically targeted at the work of social entrepreneurial groups at local levels—not big grants and not running through big non-government organisations but small, significant grants that achieve results on the ground.I am cautious about the work of the big NGOs. My experience in India was that they, too, can be so hierarchical and bureaucratic that they are an obstacle to progress. They become another type of government. There is a different way in which we can structure our aid budget: have our overseas postings and aid workers identifying and supporting people like Kiran Martin and ASHA. This is a new model for poverty alleviation. It is supported by the evidence in so many countries, and it should be built into our foreign aid policies. There is another lesson closer to home: if people really cared about the poor, they would not underestimate their capacity to get results. The lesson from ASHA is that poor people can help themselves if they have the right support and the right sense of self-esteem, success and cooperation within their communities.It is important not to get caught up with outdated ideologies. This is the problem we have with much of the welfare reform debate in Australia. Affluent people very often disparage these poverty alleviation strategies—the role of the market, the importance of property rights, the significance of civil society, the work and the social entrepreneurs. They have become market sceptics. They no longer have to rely on economic growth for their quality of life, so they think that poor people no longer need to rely on growth. That is how they come up with their antimarket rhetoric.It is often said that the market and globalisation are immoral. What I find really immoral in this debate is the disconnection of these rich but disillusioned critics from the circumstances of poor people themselves. Poor people know that there can be no answer to unemployment and long-term poverty without economic growth, and history shows that the market economy is the best way of generating growth.This is the source of the antimarket rhetoric. It is from a group of disaffected rich people who themselves have become disconnected from the circumstances of the poor. We see it in this parliament in the rhetoric of people like the member for Kennedy and his Queensland National Party colleagues. He talks about economic disadvantage, but he never talks about the most disadvantaged group in his electorate, Aboriginal people. He talks about welfare all right—welfare for farmers and other business interests. He does not talk about the need for welfare reform and new poverty alleviation strategies in the Aboriginal communities in his electorate. Of course, closely related to the member for Kennedy is the phenomenon of Hansonism. Where did Hansonism come from? It came out of Ms Hanson's own interests and perceptions as the owner of a business. It is further evidence that these antimarket politicians are very much disconnected from the circumstances of the poor, and that is indeed a great challenge as we move forward with public policy in this country. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Mrs Gallus) adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 10.32 p.m.