2001-03-293918REPS2597502001-03-29—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills25975R125425975Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.2597509:31:0025975Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill, together with the Dried Vine Fruits (Rate of Primary Industry (Excise) Levy) Validation Bill 2001, seeks to validate certain regulations that purported to fix retrospectively the rate of the primary industry (customs) and charge (excise) levy on dried vine fruits and for related purposes from 1 January 2000.The purpose of this bill is to ensure that subsection 48(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901,whichinvalidates any regulation that is expressed to take effect at a time before it is gazetted and operates to the disadvantage of any person other than the Commonwealth, is taken not to have applied to schedule 1 of the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment Regulations 2000 (No. 1) (Statutory Rules No. 236). Amendments to the regulations which facilitated a reduction in the charge rate for dried fruit from $10 to $7 per tonne from 1 January 2000 will be thus validated.The monetary size of any refunds will be minimal. The bill does not create any new administrative burden for levy payers and the only rights adversely affected are those of the Commonwealth. I present the explanatory memorandum and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Dr Martin) adjourned.Bills25975R125525975Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.2597509:34:0025975Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill, together with the Dried Vine Fruits (Rate of Primary Industry (Customs) Charge) Validation Bill 2001, seeks to validate certain regulations that purported to fix retrospectively the rate of the primary industry (excise) levy and (customs) charge on dried vine fruits and for related purposes for the period between 1 January and 1 October 2000.Up until 30 June 1999 there was an excise marketing levy of $10 per tonne imposed on dried vine fruits under the Horticultural Levy Act 1987; that is, the old act.The old act was repealed on the commencement of the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999, the new act. The repeal of the old act would normally have had the effect that regulations identifying the rate at $10 per tonne would cease to be in force. However, the regulations were kept in force by transitional arrangements under the new act.Consistent with industry requests, it was decided in March 2000 to reduce the rate of levy on dried vine fruits from $10 per tonne to $7 per tonne to prevent an excessive build-up in funds occurring. The reduction was to take retrospective effect from 1 January 2000.The method chosen to facilitate this request was to repeal the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection (Dried Vine Fruits) Regulations and amend the Primary Industries Excise Levies Regulations 1999. However, since the necessary amendments and repeals were carried out some time after 1 January 2000, the amendments and repeals were necessarily retrospective.Contrary to the original advice received from the Attorney-General's Department, the regulations imposing the new levy or charge have been deemed to possibly contravene subsection 48(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which invalidates any regulation that is expressed to take effect at a time before it is gazetted and operates to the disadvantage of any person other than the Commonwealth. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that this legislation is taken not to have applied to schedule 1 of the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Regulations 2000 (No. 3) (Statutory Rules No. 237). The amendments to the regulations which facilitated a reduction in the excise levy for dried fruit from $10 to $7 per tonne for the period between 1 January and 1 October 2000 will be thus validated.The actual levy collected by the Levies Revenue Service has been reduced to $7 per tonne since it was originally gazetted in September 2000 to minimise any impact on levy payers whilst the situation has remained unresolved. The monetary size of any refunds will be minimal.The bill does not create any new administrative burden for levy payers and the only rights adversely affected are those of the Commonwealth. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Dr Martin) adjourned.Bills25976R125225976Bill presented by Mr McGauran, for Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.2597609:38:0025976McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The amendments provided for in this bill and in the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amend-ment Bill 2001 are necessary to allow the introduction of a world-leading, internationally harmonised framework for regulation of medical devices in Australia. The amendments will allow better protection of public health while facilitating access to new technologies. Medical devices are not consumer goods. They include a wide range of products such as lasers, syringes, condoms, contact lenses, X-ray equipment, heart rate monitors, pacemakers, heart valves and baby incubators. Medical devices are health care products that generally involve advice and intervention from health care professionals and throughout the world are subject to regulation and control separate and distinct from consumer goods. Medical devices are seldom used as a matter of choice and the impact of medical device failure can be fatal.The amendments will benefit consumers through a comprehensive risk management and risk assessment system. Medical devices will be classified according to the degree of risk involved in the use of the device based on the level of invasiveness in the human body, duration of use, and contact with the central nervous or circulatory system. The classification of medical devices will go from a prescriptive system with two classes, `registrable' and `listable', to five classes where the level of regulation applied to each class of device will be proportional to the level of risk posed by its use. The new system will appropriately identify and manage any risks associated with new and emerging technologies. Medical device safety will be improved under the new framework. All devices will have to meet substantive requirements for quality, safety and performance for the protection of patients and users. The technical expression of these requirements is ensured by international standards. Manufacturers of all medical devices will be required to meet manufacturing standards and all manufacturers, except those manufacturing the lowest risk devices, will be audited and have their systems certified. Under the current system only 50 per cent of manufacturers are required to meet quality systems standards.Under the new system the number of types of devices categorised in the high risk class will increase to give better coverage and scrutiny of these important, often highly invasive medical devices. These products are generally cardiovascular and neurological implants and products sourced from animal tissues. Given the sensitivity of certain high risk devices, section 41EA of this new legislation provides for these devices to be fully assessed by the TGA before they are marketed in Australia. This would exclude such devices from the scope of any mutual recognition agreement Australia may have with other countries. The government considers this to be a particularly important provision given the risks associated with these particular devices—for example, the possibility of products that may contain such things as contaminated animal material including bovine sourced material from BSE-identified countries.The scope of low risk, non-powered and non-sterile medical devices included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods will also increase allowing for a more effective post-market monitoring system that will ensure consumers continue to be protected from unsafe products. There will be a small number of products, currently regulated as devices, that will not fall under the new framework. They will continue to be regulated by the TGA using existing Australian standards.It is proposed to also include in-vitro diagnostic products under the new regulatory framework within the next couple of years. These devices include all pathology tests. The global model for these devices is under development and the TGA is consulting widely with stakeholders on this matter.There will also be an increased emphasis on post-market activities with the requirement for manufacturers and sponsors to report adverse events involving their medical devices to the TGA within specified time frames. Australia's involvement in an international post-market vigilance system should reduce the likelihood of repeated adverse events and influence the development of new medical devices. Australian consumers need and benefit from access to a wide range of medical devices, including new technologies. By dollar value, approximately 90 per cent of medical devices used by Australians are imported. The Australian medical devices market is approximately one per cent of the global market. It is therefore imperative that Australia has a regulatory system aligned with world's best practice that ensures a high degree of medical device safety, performance and quality and also allows timely access to new devices.The international model of regulation adopts the global model developed by the Global Harmonisation Taskforce, comprising the regulators of Europe, the USA, Canada, Japan and Australia. The European system is the basis for the new global model. The new regulatory requirements will facilitate the operation of the Australia-European Union Mutual Recognition Agreement, MRA, by avoiding unnecessary or unique regulation which make Australian access to international markets less competitive.Applications for entry on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods will be streamlined using a new electronic lodgement process. Low risk devices will be notified to the Therapeutic Goods Administration enabling sponsors to market these products without undue delay. The new system includes the power for the TGA to suspend a medical device from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods when appropriate, rather than cancelling the device from the register. This measure will allow manufacturers and sponsors to investigate any problems that may arise and take appropriate action.Transitional arrangements for the new system allow five years for products currently on the register to meet the new requirements. There is also provision for a two-year transition period for a group of specified new products not previously manufactured to a certified quality system.There has been extensive consultation on the proposal since 1998 with consumers, the medical devices industry, professional groups and the states and territories. There is strong support for the proposed new regulatory reforms amongst all these groups. This is reformist legislation of the best kind which has taken a great deal of time, effort and thought by all sectors of the industry, including consumer groups and the Department of Health and Aged Care. In the absence of the minister, I congratulate them for the hard work which will bring enormous benefits to consumers. In summary, the introduction of an internationally harmonised medical device regulatory system for Australia that will ensure better protection of public health, while facilitating access to new technologies will benefit all Australians. I commend the bill to the House. I present explanatory memoranda to this bill and to the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2001. Debate (on motion by Dr Martin) adjourned.Bills25978R125325978Bill presented by Mr McGauran, for Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.2597809:45:0025978McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Currently the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Act 1989 allows for annual charges to be payable in respect of `listing' or `registration' of therapeutic goods. Under the draft Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medical Devices) Bill 2001, medical devices will be `included' rather than `listed' or `registered' on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. The amendments in the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2001 will allow charges to be payable for medical devices that are `included' on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods.Debate (on motion by Dr Martin) adjourned.Business25978Motion (by Mr McGauran) proposed:That the following order of the day, government business, be discharged.No. 1 Postal Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2000: Second Reading—Resumption of debate.09:47:0025978Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Backflip! It is another backflip—Motion (by Mr McGauran) put:That the question be now put.09:52:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 71Abbott, A.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.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.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.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.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.58Adams, D.G.H.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Fahey, J.J.Plibersek, T.Downer, A.J.G.Gerick, J.F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the motion (Mr McGauran's) be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.09:57:0025979Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended to:(1) enable the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts explaining to the House—(a) the reasons for the Government's backflip in discharging the Postal Services Legislation Amendment Bill from the Notice Paper; (b) whether this represents a commitment by the Howard-Anderson Government not to deregulate Australia Post, not just for the remainder of this parliament but for the next;(c) whether the Government is proposing to continue with its secret amendments to the Communications and the Arts Legislation Amendment Bill, order of the day No. 11, which would have the same effect of deregulating essential Australia Post services;(d) why the Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the National Party and Minister for Transport and Regional Services on Monday in question time denied that the Postal Services Legislation Amendment Bill deregulates Australia Post; and(2) to enable the Opposition to welcome the discharge and the Government's adoption of longstanding Labor Party policy.This government is in disarray!Motion (by Mr McGauran) put:That the member be not further heard.10:02:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 72Abbott, A.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.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.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.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.58Adams, D.G.H.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Fahey, J.J.Plibersek, T.Downer, A.J.G.Gerick, J.F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?10:07:0025980Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I second the motion. Another day, another backflip. A government in shambles, a government with—Motion (by Mr McGauran) put:That the member be not further heard.10:08:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 72Abbott, A.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.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.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.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.58Adams, D.G.H.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Fahey, J.J.Plibersek, T.Downer, A.J.G.Gerick, J.F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Stephen Smith's) be agreed to.10:11:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 57Adams, D.G.H.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.72Abbott, A.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.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.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.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.Beazley, K.C.Howard, J.W.Plibersek, T.Fahey, J.J.Gerick, J.F.Downer, A.J.G.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bills25982R113925982Debate resumed from 31 August 2000, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.10:15:0025982Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 will amend the Navigation Act 1912, the Seafarers Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 to revise the jurisdictional basis for shipping safety regulation. At the outset I would indicate to the House that the opposition supports the substantive changes proposed in this bill with some reservations that I will address later. However, I also clearly state that we do oppose the amendment in item 10 of the bill and I foreshadow that I will move an amendment to delete those changes.In broad terms, the Navigation Act 1912 has historically given the Commonwealth responsibility for overseas and interstate voyages by Australian trading ships and foreign vessels trading in Australian waters. The states and the Northern Territory currently regulate intrastate voyages by Australian trading ships and foreign vessels. In saying that, however, I note that over the years many of the larger vessels operating intrastate have used the mechanisms of the Navigation Act to opt to the Commonwealth jurisdiction. This has provided some of those operators of the larger vessels the flexibility to operate interstate and overseas, without changing jurisdiction.The bill before the House, in essence, makes a fundamental change to that historic division of responsibility for maritime safety regulation. The bill amends the Navigation Act 1912 to redefine the Commonwealth's responsibility. The amended act recasts the lines of responsibility between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The amended act draws a jurisdiction based on the size of vessels to be regulated as opposed to the nature of the voyages to be undertaken by the vessel. Generally speaking, the Commonwealth will now have responsibility for vessels over 500 gross tonnage, thereby devolving to the states and the Northern Territory responsibility for all vessels under 500 gross tonnage.The practical effect of this change for maritime safety regulation is to bring within the coverage of the Navigation Act 1912 trading ships over 500 gross tonnes proceeding on an intrastate voyage. These vessels were previously covered by the relevant state or territory because of the nature of their voyage within the boundaries of that state or territory. Similarly, the bill has the effect of now precluding some categories of vessel that are currently covered by the Navigation Act 1912. Responsibility for the safety regulation of these vessels will now move to the relevant state or territory. The vessels in that category are Australian trading ships under 500 gross tonnes operating on interstate voyages. It should be noted at this point that it is not proposed to change the current jurisdictional arrangement for Australian fishing vessels, fishing fleet support vessels, pleasure craft or inland waterways vessels and offshore oil rigs support vessels.The current jurisdictional arrangement reflects the shipping and navigation agreement between the Commonwealth, the states and the Northern Territory made under the 1979 offshore constitutional settlement. In 1997, the Australian Transport Council, comprising all Australian transport ministers, formed the view that this arrangement presented some difficulties in administration. It was thought that the arrangements caused unnecessary confusion for business and duplication of regulatory activity and costs. In 1999 the Australian Transport Council therefore unanimously agreed to the revised arrangement now proposed in this bill. The general perception of the governments, both state and federal, was that the size of the vessels was a more appropriate jurisdictional base given the nature of the risks and activities to be regulated in the maritime industry; that is, large ships tend to pose a more substantial safety and environmental risk because of the volume of cargo and fuel being carried. For this reason, and because it is largely this size vessel involved in international trade, the international conventions and protocols are more rigorous and tailored to this size vessel. This has always been a challenge for states to comply with and participate in those international agreements. In fact, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974, which is the principal international treaty regulating ship safety, applies to vessels over 500 gross tonnes.The upshot of the bill is that the Commonwealth will continue to regulate all Australian trading vessels proceeding on overseas voyages. It will also assume responsibility for the maritime safety regulation of all foreign registered vessels trading in Australian waters, with the exception of those under 500 tonnes operating exclusively intrastate. For this reason, from the opposition's point of view, that shift appears to be logical. It is an interesting question to ponder, however, why it has not always been on this basis. That takes me to a criticism of the bill that has been raised with me by a number of groups that have spoken to me in the lead-up to today's debate.In fact, in my consultations with the maritime industry on the bill, an issue has been raised about the potential for constitutional challenges to the change in jurisdiction proposed by the bill. The Commonwealth jurisdiction has two footings—namely, the navigation power and the one based on interstate trade and commerce. It has been put to me in a vigorous fashion by some in the industry that vessels under 500 tonnes trading interstate have been covered by the Commonwealth for good reason—that is, that in the course of their trade they spend time in more than one jurisdiction. Coverage by the Commonwealth has removed the potential ambiguity regarding obligations and requirements. I take the opportunity, therefore, to foreshadow at this point that this bill be referred to the Senate legislation committee for scrutiny so as to ensure that those who have some concerns about the nature of the bill have an opportunity to present their concerns in detail to a Senate committee. I will be asking opposition senators in the Senate to explore the issue raised about the potential for ambiguity or confusion, as I have detailed in the debate this morning. I say that not because I am totally convinced that this is a problem but because the issue has been raised in as vigorous a fashion as it has and that, in the parliament's consideration of this bill, it must therefore be fully explored in the other house. Clearly, the bill was intended to simplify the arrangements. It is important that we have not opened up a new area of confusion or ambiguity. I stress this because in this industry any confusion or ambiguity over rights and responsibilities in the act has important safety consequences, environmental consequences and can cost the lives of our seafarers or waterside workers. The government will obviously contend that this is covered by the option in the current act to allow an operator to apply to `opt in' to the Commonwealth legislation under the provisions in section 8AC. I suggest alternatively that the bill modifies that provision in the current act to allow the owner of a vessel of less than 500 gross tonnes to apply to come within Commonwealth jurisdiction. This is fine, obviously, where the owner makes the decision to make the application to come within the Commonwealth act. We are left to rely on the operator to make that application. The current act has no ambiguity. This is another part of the changes to be explored by the Senate committee because of the consequences of the bill not being clear about the regulatory framework when operating between states and territories. The minister has also decided to introduce an `opting out' provision to the Navigation Act 1912. In pure terms, this is an interesting concept to ponder and one that suggests that one can apply not to be covered by Commonwealth safety legislation and regulations. In that context, therefore, the guidelines and provisions on determining the response to that application are critical to maritime safety and the rigour of safety in its application. The application by an owner of a trading ship of more than 500 gross tonnes for a declaration that the Navigation Act 1912 does not apply to their ship is determined by AMSA. The bill allows for AMSA to make such a declaration, subject to conditions and consistent with prescribed guidelines. Last year, the opposition recognised how critical these guidelines and provisos were to the effective operation of the proposed new regime. Last year the minister introduced the bill and, unfortunately, expected the parliament to give proper consideration to it without those guidelines being available. That is not how you pursue good legislation in this country. On that basis, we secured agreement from the minister that the bill would not come before the House for a second reading until those guidelines were agreed with the states—something that is fundamental to the eventual implementation of the bill. I therefore report to the House that as late as Tuesday of this week, that agreement was finally secured. So I simply note today that, when the bill came in last year, it was a long way off from being agreed to because the states had not been properly consulted about the guidelines associated with the application of the bill. That is something fairly fundamental to the proper legislative processes in this country. The opting out guidelines and the general jurisdiction change proposed have a direct impact on the employment conditions of seafarers. The current application of the Navigation Act 1912 has directly impacted on the jurisdictional arrangements for respective Commonwealth, state and/or territory compensation and occupational health and safety legislation—something that is dear to my heart. To keep it consistent, the bill therefore amends the coverage provisions of the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 to align the application to the revised application of the Navigation Act 1912 for maritime safety regulation. The bill also amends these acts to include a comprehensive application provision, rather than relying upon the reference to coverage or application provisions in the amended Navigation Act 1912. The bill obviously maintains the status quo for coverage in relation to foreign ships under current Commonwealth occupational health and safety and maritime workers compensation laws. The opting out provisions of the act have the potential, unfortunately, to provide an avenue to opt out of Commonwealth occupational health and safety and compensation coverage. This was a further reason why the opposition, in scrutinising this bill, was so vitally concerned to ensure that the opting out guidelines were rigorous and not a loophole, in essence, not shopping around for the lowest possible conditions on what I regard as fairly fundamental in a decent country—the health and safety of Australian workers. I therefore note in passing today that, in this respect, the agreed guidelines provided yesterday state:AMSA will not make a declaration for a trading ship unless it has received from the Seafarers Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Authority (the Seacare Authority) a notice in writing that such a declaration will not adversely impact on the operation of the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992, and that the Seacare Authority is satisfied that the trading ship and its crew will be appropriately covered by a relevant State or the Northern Territory workers' compensation scheme.I urge all those who will participate in the debate to give regard to that statement. I welcome that proviso and ask that the Senate committee fully explore, perhaps with a representative of the Seacare Authority, what will be intended by the term `appropriately covered'. It must be rigorous in its application so as to avoid shipowners shopping around in an endeavour to undermine fair and reasonable conditions going to the health and safety and workers compensation standards of Australian workers. I also welcome the proviso in the guidelines requiring a guarantee from the states that they will be regulated under the state's or territory's marine safety, environmental protection and occupational health and safety legislation. These and other key terms of the guidelines agreed with the states yesterday require some scrutiny from the Senate committee. For example, I would like to be assured, as the opposition transport spokesperson, that the conditions are rigorous enough and not designed to allow a mass opting out from the more rigorous Commonwealth legislation. The limits appear strict, but any fair reading of them must demand that the committee apply full scrutiny to ensure that we are not allowing a total undermining of our rigorous maritime safety regime on our coastline—something that I fear, unfortunately, the Commonwealth government is committed to.For that reason, as I alluded to earlier, the opposition will be seeking to amend the bill to remove the proposed change to the application of part VI, coastal trading—cabotage provisions. The bill proposes to quarantine the cabotage provisions from the impact of the revised jurisdiction. To date, the application of part VI, the cabotage provisions, has been limited to section 2 of the act. The result has been a situation—what I see as a loophole—where foreign vessels proceeding on intrastate voyages have not been covered by the cabotage provisions of the act. I say that because the cabotage provisions are part of the Commonwealth act, and the act is applied only to interstate and overseas voyages. Foreign ships operating within one state have dodged these provisions that apply to all other ships on the coastal trade. Quite simply, the consequence has been that foreign ships conducting domestic transport services within one state, such as the state of Queensland, have been able to avoid paying domestic wages and ensuring domestic Australian conditions of service for crews.The bill has tried to change the Navigation Act coverage but to limit that only to parts that would ensure this loophole was left open, unfortunately. I will address the implications of this matter further when the bill is considered in detail. Suffice to say, the effect of the amendment in item 10 is to introduce major change to the application of the act but to only part of its application. In spite of how it is dressed up, it is clear that they will do anything to not give any ground on their entrenched ideological opposition to ensuring fair pay and safe conditions for all seafarers working on our coastal domestic transport tasks.In terms of the number of ships impacted by the change in jurisdiction, the department has been unable to provide specific, accurate figures. However, it has estimated that the number of ships that would transfer from state or territory jurisdiction to Commonwealth jurisdiction is 40, but if ferries and barges—for example, those expected to be allowed to opt out—are taken out this estimate reduces to 10. The number of ships under 500 tonnes that would transfer to state or territory coverage is also about 40, but again the department anticipates that many of these ships are ones that have already opted for Commonwealth coverage. Perhaps the Senate committee, in its deliberations, can also glean some clearer statistics on the impact of this bill.I have unfortunately been a longstanding critic of the minister's approach to his transport portfolio. In the maritime area, the record clearly shows that he continuously leaves Australian shipping out to dry. This is in actual fact reflected in a number of speeches he has made since he assumed responsibility for the portfolio of Transport and Regional Services. I suggest to the House that a principal reason for this is his lack of commitment and support to Australia as a shipping nation. He is obviously focused on cheap freight rates at any cost to the welfare of Australian workers and their families or, importantly, to our environment. He is prepared to forsake shipping and crew standards and risk our marine environment in order to make marginal savings in freight rates and in order to be seen ideologically strong in opposition to cabotage and the recognition of the rights of Australian workers to decent wages and conditions of employment, the right to work in a safe environment and, importantly, our right as a nation to do everything possible to protect our environment. At what cost, therefore, is this government prepared to risk the ideological application of its own view of life to the standards and conditions that any decent country would expect, be it with respect to how we employ our workers or with respect to our environmental standards? We all support and appreciate the importance, especially as an island nation, of efficient shipping services to Australia because of our heavy reliance on trying to sell Australian goods and services—an export nation. We have always been a nation of exporters and we will continue to be a nation of exporters. But that efficiency, I suggest to the House, must not be achieved in the context of risking a humane and safe industry with professional standards of training and development for crews.This topic is very capably covered in a report by the International Commission on Shipping Safety entitled Ships, slaves and competition. That inquiry into shipping, as the member for Braddon well appreciates, was chaired by a former member of this House and a former minister for transport, the Hon. Peter Morris. We are all aware of the contribution he has made to the maritime industry not only within Australia but, importantly, internationally. I think it is also acknowledged on both sides of the House that he is a man of some significant standing when it comes to the need to protect Australia's environmental standards against ships of shame and the need to ensure that Australian workers and families are protected on the basis that, when an Australian worker goes to work in the seafaring and the waterfront industry, he or she goes to work on the basis that they work in the safest possible environment and earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's work—something that, unfortunately, is not akin to the thinking of the current Minister for Transport and Regional Services.I therefore give credit to the work of the Hon. Peter Morris for his untiring focus on the safety, efficiency and wellbeing of our maritime and aviation industries and also on the need to protect Australia's environment from some of the unfortunate international accidents that have occurred in recent times on the shipping lines around the world. I commend to the House the report which the Hon. Peter Morris had some involvement in—Ships, slaves and competition. It makes a valuable contribution to the consideration of this bill and it makes a valuable contribution to where we should be going as a nation when it comes to our export services and our reliance on shipping services, both domestic and international. It is a document that should be read, digested and acted upon in the interests of our maritime industry and in the interests of Australia as a nation.I note, to the credit of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, his comments to the Shipping in the Asia-Pacific Arena conference on 7 March 2001. Perhaps, finally, he is starting to learn. He indicated in that speech that he supports the contribution of the commission and acknowledged that:... it will be important that its work is now carried forward by the responsible part of the industry and government.The minister has also indicated that he is prepared to sponsor the tabling of the report at the International Maritime Organisation and will ask that its recommendations be fully addressed. The opposition will obviously be monitoring this statement and the commitment by the minister to ensure that he sticks to it. It will be a nice change when it comes to proper attention to his transport portfolio.I suggest that the minister might like to start at home with assistance to our own shipping industry. He could start by releasing and finalising the report that he received not this year but in 1998 on matters central to consideration of the issues I have raised today. That report was one conducted by senior shipping industry officials to improve the efficiency of the Australian shipping industry. It is my understanding that, unfortunately, the minister did not like what it said. It did not recommend that the bulldogs and balaclavas approach used by the Howard government on the waterfront also be used in the shipping industry. So the report continues to gather dust on the minister's desk. It is time the minister acknowledged his broader responsibilities not just to his National Party constituency but to his wider constituency as a Commonwealth minister. It is time that he listened to the Australian community who say that they want a safe, efficient Australian shipping industry. They want that because they care about their maritime environment, something that is pretty important in your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker Gash. They do not want slave conditions applied to Australian workers. Australia is a country that has always prided itself on a fair go, a sense of equity and a reasonable approach to setting decent wages and conditions of employment. The community also understand, far better than the minister, the need, for national interest and defence reasons, for us as an island nation to have an efficient and safe shipping industry. This was recently proved in our involvement in East Timor. That is not just my view; it is also the view of our leader, Lieutenant General Cosgrove, who handled our forces in East Timor, when he acknowledged the importance of our maritime industry and the contribution they made to our defence forces in East Timor.Obviously, therefore, Labor support the main purpose of this bill. We correctly have some reservations, as it is the responsibility of the opposition to scrutinise bills presented to the parliament by the government, and we will seek to ensure that those reservations are fully explored and explained in the appropriate Senate processes. To that end, as advised, Labor will seek to refer this bill to the Senate legislation committee. As I foreshadowed, Labor opposes the changes in item 10 and at the consideration in detail stage I will move an amendment which goes to this issue.10:43:0025987Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—I have pleasure in rising today to speak in the debate on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. As the previous speaker has indicated, the opposition supports the passage of the legislation. I do not propose to revisit that other than to say that the bill amends the Navigation Act 1912 and settles certain jurisdictional issues between the Commonwealth and the states and that the power of the parliament to make laws with respect to trade and commerce extends to navigation and shipping, and that has been duly done with this legislation.I will address some issues that the shadow minister has spoken about. He has made great play of Australian workers and their families. Sadly, he excluded comment about people in small business and their families. Talking of exporters, he made great play of the bulldogs and the balaclavas in the waterfront issues. He made no comment on the violence against others who were genuinely trying to go about their work. From the national perspective, it should be acknowledged that this is all about the 25 containers per hour, which were achieved yesterday and certainly spoken about in this place yesterday. It will remain for posterity to judge our society when a minister who had the courage to confront the MUA had to walk around this country with 24-hour protection. That says it all in one sentence. That is my regret about the comments of—849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—It's often not what you do; it's how you do it.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—I will not react to that interjection. Let the Australian people judge when a minister of the Crown requires that sort of protection from people who think that violence is acceptable. I simply repeat that 25 containers an hour has now been achieved on the Australian waterfront.10:47:0025987O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 amends the Navigation Act 1912 to revise and clarify the respective responsibilities of the Commonwealth, states and territories in relation to the regulation of shipping safety of Australian ships engaged in trade within our waters, as well as regulating foreign flag trade ships that operate within our waters. While I do not propose to speak at length on this piece of legislation, I have a longstanding interest in the issue of safety of ships which trade within Australian waters. I had the privilege of serving on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure with the former transport minister Peter Morris. Members would know that Peter Morris chaired the famous Ships of shame inquiry, which produced a report of world significance. Peter Morris is held in high esteem by all sectors of the industry, be they unions, shippers, port owners or other transporters who are associated with this industry. I also have an interest because the port of Geelong is in my electorate of Corio. It is the largest bulk handling port in the Southern Hemisphere. Through the years, I have had a close association with the MUA in my electorate, particularly with Kevin O'Leary, who has kept me informed, as the local member, on many of the problems and issues that relate to foreign trading vessels that come into our port. The port of Geelong is a vehicle for the export of grain and timber products particularly. It serves as a major import destination for petroleum products and other bulk commodities related to the production of fertilisers. It is a very important port and generates considerable wealth for the Corio electorate and the Geelong region. Ports of this kind are not without their problems. I have relied on the vigilance of MUA members in my electorate to alert me to some of the safety concerns that surround the foreign vessels that come into our port and some of the more extreme cases where safety and the rights of seafarers have been violated. In the past, the MUA have alerted me to significant safety concerns and instances where crews have been maltreated. I commend the work of the MUA and also the Seamen's Mission in North Shore for the work that they do on behalf of foreign seafarers who come into the port of Geelong. The MUA have expressed to me both nationally and at a local level their concern at the operation of flags of convenience vessels not only in the port of Geelong but around Australia. They have raised concerns about the inhumane treatment of crews and have alerted the community to the significant environmental damage that these vessels may cause in our ports. None of us in this House downplays the realities of world commerce in the 21st century. Australia is an important trading nation within our region and in global terms. The inescapable fact of trade is that many of the products that we export and many of the products that come into our country are brought here in flags of convenience shipping vessels.In the sector that I have a particular interest in as the shadow minister for agriculture, fisheries and forestry, many of the major industries—sugar, beef, wool and dairy, for example—export significant amounts of produce. With that trade comes significant danger. We have seen that danger in the way in which foot-and-mouth disease has spread in Europe and the attempts that we are making here to keep Australia free of this disease which is so difficult to control. I commend here the role of the MUA in that. The wharfies are often the subject of denigration here in this House from members opposite. I must say I am disappointed in the honourable member for Grey, who delivered a short speech in the parliament the object of which seemed to be to denigrate the MUA and its members. Of course, the people who mount this sort of criticism probably have not done a good hard day's labour in their lives. The former minister for industrial relations and now the Minister for Defence was the recipient of some $45,000, as I understand it, in a discount on a penthouse in Melbourne at Crown Casino. He is also the minister who was responsible for a significant abuse of his telecard.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—You are above all that.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—The Minister for Community Services sits here at the table saying that we ought not to mention those things. But I think one of the elements of credibility when you get on your feet in this House and start to bag members of a trade union might be that you at least have a clean skin yourself. I do not think that is unreasonable. But, as we know, some of the most vociferous critics of the MUA in this House have been some of the biggest coalition rorters. That is the fact of the matter. So, when they get up here and bag the MUA and its members, I will get up here and defend them. I will defend my members in Geelong, who have been vigilant on this issue of quarantine. They have been at the forefront in expressing their concern about the inhumane treatment of their fellow seafarers who come to Geelong and they have been at the forefront in raising with me their concerns about the safety of some of the vessels that are coming into our port. Members opposite might not be aware of that. They might not want to hear that, because they do tend to swallow their own anti-MUA rhetoric. But, as far as the farmers of Australia are concerned, the people who are in the front line in defending their livelihoods against the ravages of foot-and-mouth are the wharfies. They are the ones who have been alerting us to some of the potential quarantine breaches and the problems that might be caused by the importation of goods and machinery that might carry that disease. And they do that while knowing the history of the National Farmers Federation and its leadership at the time in trying to break them. I think honourable members ought to understand that particular point and I would like the Australian people to understand it. If ever there was a group of citizens in this country that had their rights assailed, it was the MUA. They were the ones in the front line when the then minister for industrial relations sent in the thugs trained in Dubai. They were in the front line when the dogs were barking at the behest of that minister. I remind honourable members that they are the very people who could bear an eternal grudge against the rural sector. But what have we seen on this issue of foot-and-mouth? They have been in the front line in warning farmers about the dangers and they have expressed a real concern about the impacts of that disease if it were to get past them and the quarantine officers. They do not deserve the mean-spirited, mealy-mouthed pillorying that they get from coalition members in this House. When they raise issues of safety concern, the MUA members are doing it because they fear for the welfare and the lives of foreign seafarers and their own members. When they express concern about what foreign vessels in our waters dump into our bays, they are expressing their concern about the potential damage that could be done to the Australian environment and to industries in this country. Those are legitimate concerns of that particular body, and they ought to be legitimate concerns of this parliament.One of the reservations that we are expressing about this legislation relates to the opting-out provisions, because they provide an opportunity for vessel owners to apply to remove themselves from Commonwealth jurisdiction for maritime safety regulation, occupational health and safety legislation and compensation arrangements. We all know that the provisions of Commonwealth legislation are generally considered to be more favourable than those in the states and territories on compensation and occupational health and safety issues. We consider that it is absolutely imperative that the guidelines and conditions on the opting-out provisions are rigorous and are open to scrutiny.I will not speak at length on the details of this legislation but I think it is timely for me, as shadow minister for agriculture, to make some comments on the great dangers posed to rural industry by certain exotic diseases that can come into this country in ships. It is a task of not only the members of the maritime union but our great quarantine service and the Australian public to ensure that exotic pests and diseases are kept well away from our shores. One of the dangers, a very real danger, that we all feel is that, if we pitch to the lowest common denominator and we go for cheap freight rates at all costs, there might be a short-term commercial advantage to some—and, as we know in this particular industry, that advantage can accrue to a small number of very, very rich people—but we ought not lose sight of the fact that often the cost in the long term of seeking the short-term benefit far outweighs any short-term commercial benefit. We might enjoy for a short period the benefits of low freight rates in our coastal waters and between our cities but, if we allow free rein to these flag of convenience vessels that deal with the lowest common denominator in safety concerns, abuse their crews and have no regard for Australia's environment, we are really opting for a very short-term benefit at the risk of long-term harm. These are concerns not only raised by the MUA. I held a meeting in Geelong last year of people interested in this issue, particularly the potential for foreign vessels entering the port of Geelong to do untold environmental damage to our bay. Members of councils and of the Geelong Environment Council, the MUA and other interested citizens attended that meeting and expressed their concerns, and it is those concerns that I express on the floor of this House today for them.In conclusion, I was interested in a press release that came from the MUA on 6 March which highlighted the daily cases of exploitation and abuse on our coast. It is a hard-hitting press release. It is entitled `Australian shippers promote slavery'. The press release comments on a report published by the International Commission on Shipping called Ships, slaves and competition. The commission is chaired by Peter Morris. The report, delivered at the APEC safer shipping forum in Sydney on 6 March, has catalogued the very things that I have been talking about on the floor of this House. Peter Morris has catalogued once again all of those things that are wrong in Australian shipping, and I think we need to reflect here on some of the words in this press release. It says this:But it is not just a matter of wages. Crew abuse and environmental plunder go hand in hand. The same ships that abuse crew, pollute our oceans.That is the reality of it: a short-term commercial advantage to the nation from cheap freight rates for our coastal waters could cost the nation, at the end of the day, billions. We need to be cognisant of that fact.This government has a very tardy record on a whole range of matters relating to Australia's coastal shipping and the waterfront. I have referred to some of those in this debate here today. We know this is a government of the lowest common denominator in the way it has sought to relate to issues on the waterfront. There must be many members opposite who are ashamed of the fact that dogs and thugs in balaclavas were the policy output of their government and their ministers. So let us hope we get some sensible debate on maritime affairs in this country. Let us hope we get some realistic concern by government for the potential dangers that flow from the flag of convenience vessels that come to our shores, abuse their crews, do environmental damage and, at the end of the day, give nothing to Australia.11:07:0025990Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—The very words of our national anthem certainly remind all of us that Australia is an island nation. We sing, `Our land is girt by sea.' And the modern history of Australia is inevitably mixed with maritime folklore and tales of sailors and seamen from the very early days. Often that history is about hardship and the exploitation of seamen and sailors—thankfully not so much in recent decades of our own Australian ships but certainly we still hear horrendous stories of the exploitation of sailors and seamen from other nations, and especially those which sail ships under flags of convenience. The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2000, which I support, needs to be seen in the context of the decades-long process by governments on both sides of the House to eliminate so-called ships of shame from the waters of the Australian jurisdiction, to improve the quality of management and safety of shipping in Australian waters and to simplify the complexity of regulations that apply to coastal trade. This bill builds upon the foundation of the Navigation Act 1912 that lays the basis for regulation of most safety related aspects of overseas and local vessels in Australian waters. It amends that act, together with the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993. One of the other foundations of marine safety and management in Australia is the Offshore Constitutional Settlement of 1979. The settlement attempts to clarify section 98 of the Australian Constitution that gives to the federal parliament the power to make laws with respect to trade and commerce applying to navigation and shipping. The Offshore Constitutional Settlement was a Commonwealth, state and territory agreement that divided responsibility for the regulation of maritime affairs among and between those governments. In doing this, it streamlined and modernised what had been a very clumsy and confusing hotchpotch of state, territory and federal government requirements and perceived responsibilities. The Offshore Constitutional Settlement has now been in operation for 20 years and the time has come to make further adjustments in the light of the past two decades of experience. One of the outcomes of the 1980 division of jurisdiction was that the Commonwealth was not given control over the safety regulation of large trading ships, including foreign vessels, operating only on intrastate voyages—that is, from one point to another within a state jurisdiction. But it did give the Commonwealth jurisdiction over all trading ships proceeding on interstate voyages. This double jurisdiction has created a duplication of regulation and confusion and complexity for vessels engaged in both types of voyages. It has added to the cost of the transport of goods by sea. This bill will lift a non-compliance burden from the backs of small trading ship operators who may accidentally breach the complexity of regulation when undertaking an occasional voyage interstate. The bill retains the opt-in provisions whereby operators of vessels can choose to be covered by the act where it best suits their interests. This option has existed and provided flexibility since the 1912 Navigation Act. It will extend cover to the new class of trading ships that would not otherwise be subject to the act.As part of the ongoing adjustment of jurisdiction and regulation, at the 1999 Australian Transport Council, ministers agreed to alter the jurisdiction responsibility for vessel safety regulation. Currently, the Commonwealth regulates trading vessels on interstate and overseas voyages. What the transport ministers proposed, and what this bill will do, is to allow the Commonwealth to have clear responsibility for the regulation of safety for all Australian trading vessels 500 tonnes and over, Australian trading vessels proceeding overseas, and all foreign flagged trading vessels in Australian waters. The states would have responsibility for all trading vessels under 500 tonnes, whether they undertake interstate or intrastate voyages. The 500 gross tonnage mark is the tonnage level at which the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea applies.In concert with this change, another Commonwealth, state and territory body, the Workplace Relations Ministers Council, agreed, also in 1999, that workers compensation and occupational health and safety regulations should be aligned with the above changes of jurisdiction to maintain consistency of safety regulation coverage. This bill will ensure that employers and employees are covered by appropriate and adequate insurance policy cover. The amendments also accord with the Commonwealth commitments required by the government's 1998 Australia's Oceans Policy.Putting adequate maritime safeguards in place has been a struggle for governments from both sides of this House. There have been improvements in terms of good maritime management and practice, but it continues to bring its frustration because of the difficulty of ensuring proper practices in regard to foreign flag vessels, particularly in vessels registered in the so-called flag states. These are the flags of convenience that too often become the flags of irresponsibility.Australia is a nation whose economy and welfare of its citizens depend upon international and overseas trade, especially the sea transport of bulk commodities in very large vessels. At the other end of the scale, sea transport intrastate and interstate within Australia is often an attractive option for the transport of some goods, given difficult land transport within states, or long distances between population and industrial centres interstate. The full utilisation of available transport, at competitive rates, is therefore a crucial factor to the wellbeing of the Australian economy from which all Australians benefit. The high standard of care in the Australian work force, our international obligations and our high standard of care for the marine environment require the operation in particular of foreign vessels in Australian waters at a level of acceptable social, safety and technical requirements. When safety standards aboard vessels drop below acceptable safety limits, not only are human lives put at risk but the marine environment and valuable cargo are also endangered. Almost all human activities involve some risk, so public policies have to balance possible extra risks against attainable benefits. This is where there must be judicious risk management. The problem is that the acceptable safety level of the Australian government and community is much higher than the acceptable safety level of some foreign ship owners and operators. While most of the owners and operators of ships act responsibly, there is a long history of what has been described in the past to this parliament as the `ships of shame'. These are the ships that are used to deliberately maximise short-term profits at the expense of human lives, the environment and cargoes. The perpetrators responsible for these vessels are often unconcerned about their reputations. There are some who hide behind corporate identities that are easily dispensable and who exploit loopholes between national and international jurisdictions. The amendments in this bill remove the excuse and complaints of complexity and confusion and draw the net closer around exploitative practices.The tightening of the Australian net will also help the tightening of the international net. One of the best ways to stop bad practices in Australian waters by foreign vessels is to lift the international standard and the international enforcement of standards. One of the single best ways of doing this is through good port management of safety regulations worldwide. This is one of the most effective tools in combating unseaworthy and substandard vessels. The government, through the International Maritime Organisation, has been doing what it can to play a leading role in the enforcement of higher safety standards in international shipping, and it is working.There is good reason to be concerned about the standard of safety of foreign flagged ships in Australian ports and waters. Last year, 2,926 ships were inspected by Australian Maritime Safety Authority officials in Australian ports and, of these, 125 ships registered in 26 countries were found to have deficiencies sufficiently serious enough to impair their seaworthiness and to warrant detention. At this point, I would like to offer a note of appreciation to the officers of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority for the work they do in helping to keep Australian harbours and seas safe.The 4.3 per cent of detained ships last year was down from 5.3 per cent in 1999 and from 6.8 per cent in 1998. It was 6.5 per cent in 1997 and it was 8.5 per cent in 1996. Turkish flagged ships had the highest detention rate in the year 2000. It is disturbing to note that container ships moved against the general trend, being up from 7.1 per cent in 1999 to 14 per cent of all ships detained in 2000. It is worrying, because container ships make up only eight per cent of vessels inspected. This, and the fact that there were 125 unseaworthy foreign vessels under weigh in Australian waters last year, points to the need for continued vigilance when it comes to maritime safety.There is good reason to be concerned and for vigilance regarding occupational health and safety practices for our seamen and sailors aboard ships, as the 1995 report Ships of shame: a sequel revealed. I will read a short excerpt from that report. The report Ships of shame: a sequel is from the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is the report of an inquiry into ship safety that was undertaken by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, and it is dated November 1995. In chapter 2, entitled `Crew Welfare', there is a report that was lodged in a submission to the inquiry from the International Transport Federation. It reads: The ITF in their submission describe the case of a seafarer who had a foot crushed in an accident whilst preparing for sea. A waterside worker witnessed the accident and became concerned when the ship did not summon medical assistance for the man. An ITF inspector was notified and, on attendance, found the man in agony in his cabin. The Master had intended to sail with the injured man aboard. When hospitalised, the man's injury was judged so serious he required an amputation. The ITF had to intervene again to prevent the repatriation of the seafarer before his treatment had been completed.Another incident which I thought was worthy of reporting comes from an ABC interview. The interviewer was Gordon Taylor, and he was interviewing a senior chaplain, Reverend Tom Hill, from the Missions to Seamen in Sydney. In the interview Tom Hill, who sees some of the worst cases, recounted the following:We have a little Mission in Bunbury, a retired couple look after it, and we got a ring one night from there saying that a chap on board had a boil in his groin, and that the Master of the ship wouldn't let him go ashore for treatment. They rang me and said `Could you look at him?' because the ship was coming to Sydney.When they came to Sydney, I went out there and the man was literally black around his groin area; he had almost caste in his bunk. The bunk smelt—I thought he had gangrene or something. I got him dressed; I went up, and the Captain came down—he must have heard what I was doing—tried to physically stop me. But I actually took him off the ship, took him around to the hospital myself, told the agent what had happened. The man was five days in hospital.By continuing to work on improving and streamlining maritime regulation and maritime management in Australian waters, we will also help to build a regulatory infrastructure around the globe that will make it more difficult for bad operators and unsafe vessels to continue their dangerous trade. By requiring and facilitating ships to comply with maritime law in Australian waters and ports, we are also helping to protect the marine environment not only in Australian waters but in distant foreign waters as well. More importantly, we are also helping to protect the lives of sailors and seamen who visit our shores. I support this bill and commend it to the House.11:20:0025993Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I am very proud to rise today to comment on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2000, which is before us. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, being my electoral neighbour in Tasmania, my electorate is a coastal rural electorate. The ports of Devonport and Burnie are in my electorate, as is the smaller but no less efficient port of Stanley. I was somewhat bemused by the member for Grey, who spoke fully for one minute on this amendment today, and his comments about how sad it was that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in 1998, during the unsavoury and unfortunate dispute that occurred on the waterfront, appeared to have been hounded. I thought that was quite ironic in terms of the hounding that took place on the waterfront, both overtly and covertly, of those people who worked on it. The member for Grey boasted, as did the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services yesterday, about the rise in container rate statistics. In fact, in my electorate the Burnie port had those rates in 1998. Yet the past member for Braddon said nothing about the excellent work practices of those people who worked on the waterfront but merely mealy-mouthed the same comments that were being made in the ideological battle against the MUA in Melbourne and Sydney. The ports of Tasmania have always demonstrated efficiencies and have generally been harmonious. That is because it is not so much what you do but how you do it. That is the lesson that I hope this government should have learned from the 1998 episodes. I also noticed yesterday, when the ministers were skiting about the so-called increase in the container rate, they never mentioned the fact that the stevedoring rates have not changed since 1998. So you tell me what is going on. If we want to talk about making this an efficient, sustainable industry which works in harmony, then you recognise the good on all sides of the issue. I rise, as did the shadow minister and my colleagues on this side of the House, to support the main purposes of this bill, with reservations as stated by the shadow minister, which can be rigorously investigated by the relevant Senate legislation committee, particularly in relation to reservations surrounding schedule 1, item 10, section 284 of the amendments. But in the main this legislation, as the member for Hughes and my colleagues pointed out before me, is crucial to the future of Australia's shipping industry. It goes to safety and who regulates safety in our waters and, ultimately, the effect on coastal communities and marine environments. After all, economic activities occur in communities amongst people and environments.The bill will amend the Navigation Act 1912, the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 to change the jurisdictional basis for shipping and safety regulation. In broad terms, the Navigation Act 1912 gives the Commonwealth responsibility for overseas and interstate voyages by Australian trading ships and foreign vessels in Australian waters. The states and the Northern Territory regulate intrastate voyages by Australian trading ships and foreign vessels, although the owners of these vessels may opt in to the Commonwealth jurisdiction.The bill amends the Navigation Act to give the Commonwealth responsibilities for vessels over 500 gross tonnage and the states and the Northern Territory responsibility for vessels under 500 gross tonnage. I note all states and the Northern Territory have agreed to this, and we on this side also support that aspect of the bill. What we cannot support is a loophole that would remain in the legislation allowing foreign flagships on intrastate coastal trade to avoid cabotage provisions. We therefore oppose the amendments to section 284, as I mentioned in the introduction, of part VI of the Navigation Act whereby coastal trading provisions not apply to the operation of foreign flagged vessels on intrastate voyages.As an island nation, shipping is a critically important industry to Australia, but you sometimes would not know it when you look at this government's maritime track record, outlined most eloquently by the shadow minister and also the shadow minister for agriculture. This government has steered a dubious course through many of the major issues and challenges confronting the shipping industry. I have mentioned already the waterfront `reform' as an example. Still vivid in my memory is the unprecedented attack on workers during the debacle on Australia's waterfront in 1998, aided and abetted by many of those opposite. I note again that the member for Grey spent one minute in consideration of this important legislation and all he did was defend the past Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and attack the MUA and anybody else who did not like the thuggery of the government's actions and the minister's actions during the dispute. This government's ideological attack on trade unionism, demonstrated every day in question time, its ideological attack on trade unionism in general, and the Maritime Union of Australia in particular, is shameful.I recall too the most recent threat to Australia's maritime environment from suspect shipping operations—for instance, the grounding of the Malaysian freighter Bunga Teratai Satu on the Great Barrier Reef. This again underlined the need to ensure that ships' crews have the skills and the competency to operate their vessels safety. The grounding sent a warning shot over the bow of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, but typically it is likely to be another warning ignored by the coalition. Closer to home for me I have seen first-hand the disgraceful treatment of seafarers and the unacceptable conditions many are forced to ensure aboard the growing number of so-called ships of shame. The Greek owned Nicolas Star sailed into a storm of protest in Burnie last year after the terrible exploitation of a crew was discovered. I remember asking at the time: is this the type of workplace the Howard government wants for our seafarers? I sincerely hope not. We know that seafaring is a global industry infamous for ships of shame and flag of convenience ships, again eloquently demonstrated on the other side by the member for Hughes. I come from an island of Tasmania with a long and proud maritime history. Our reliance on the sea for commerce, transport and recreation is enormous, and anything that impinges on this must be very carefully scrutinised. Maritime safety should be paramount. Tasmanians, and indeed the rest of Australia, must feel secure in the knowledge that the ships that ply our waters are safe, that the crews manning the vessels are well trained and that onboard practices are of the highest standards. Sadly, the arrival of the Nicolas Star in Burnie only served to highlight to me the challenges ahead.There have been a number of inquiries into shipping practices and shipping safety over the past decade or more, most notably the three `ships of shame' inquiries conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. These reports have been instrumental in raising national and international awareness of the nature and extent of problems affecting the safety of ships and the welfare of their crews. The last of those reports, Ships of shame: a sequel, was produced in 1995.I have highlighted issues raised in these parliamentary reports before in this House, but on recent evidence it seems that there is still a long way to go before we can have complete faith in the shipping business. Unfortunately it is still the case now, as it was then, that the flag of convenience ships continue to avoid their responsibilities under international maritime safety obligations. Ships of shame, rust buckets, coffin ships and casino ships—these are just some of the names that describe the growing fleet of flag of convenience vessels threatening our coastline.FOC ships fly the flags of other nations because they are cheap. They can take advantage of low registration costs, low or no taxes, poor standards and cheap crews. About one-fifth of the world's 80,000 or more ships fly a flag of convenience, but FOC shipping represents more than half of worldwide ship losses. As the last Ships of shame report says:This final report highlights the fact that the work of this committee has really only just begun.Sub-standard shipping and inhumane treatment of crew must be eradicated to ensure a safe, environmentally responsible, clean and efficient shipping industry.Yet, despite these findings, successive Liberal governments have eagerly set about undermining the Australian shipping industry and the welfare of our seafarers. Why else would they want to avoid having cabotage provisions? Indeed the strategy of the Howard government for our shipping industry in general has been to let it wither on the vine. Contrast its record with that of Labor. The Labor Party know and understand the economic and strategic importance of maintaining a vibrant, efficient and safe domestic shipping industry. That was reaffirmed at our national conference in Hobart last year. Our platform summed up our commitment. For the record, it states that Labor will:· Ensure that Australian domestic shipping is crewed by workers operating under Australian award conditions under established cabotage arrangements—that is short for decent and safe conditions. It continues, stating that Labor will:· Encourage the continued operation of an Australian shipping industry—and in doing so ensure that Australian shipowners continue to employ Australian crews.· Encourage the expansion of Australia's participation in international shipping.· And pursue productivity, increased competition and investment at our ports.Again, contrast that with the approach of the coalition and the record of successive governments. The public face of its attempts at reform on the waterfront was none other than Peter Reith, the man who was hell-bent on bludgeoning change. I am happy to say that he has been moved on—shipped on—but, true to form, this government's ideology is unchanged, except to be moving further right, if that is possible. I note that an article written by the new Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, the Hon. Tony Abbott, appeared in Tuesday's edition of the Australian Financial Review in which he said: As a new minister, I am in awe of my predecessor's achievements as well as being conscious of how much remains to be done.He was `in awe' of the former minister's achievements. Goodness gracious me! What is next—World War VI? I note that he reinforced this sense of awe with his fawning and misleading comments in question time yesterday concerning waterfront container rates. It is just as well that responsibility for maritime matters has been returned to the minister responsible for transport—or indeed has it? It seems that he is more concerned with keeping his head down of late on the subject of shipping—and on most issues related to transport for that matter. I know that the shadow minister for transport, who is sitting at the table today, is responsible for keeping the minister's head down. I also note, with my colleague the member for Melbourne Ports sitting next to me at the moment, that the minister's reputation among those at the top end of the shipping scale is not the highest as well. I quote from the Main Committee yesterday where the member for Melbourne Ports said:In a recent publication on the Australian shipping industry, the managing director of ASP Ship Management Pty Ltd made a comment which I think is very interesting—that the current Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services said that Australia is a "nation of shippers".The member for Melbourne Ports goes on:He is correct. The shipping industry is a source of a great deal of our nation's wealth. But the managing director of this major Australian shipping company went on, "What is missing however, is any interest from our Commonwealth government in allowing fellow-Australians to provide shipping solutions to the shippers." He said that, seemingly, the sole focus of attention in this current government has been on "the maritime unions and an accompanying hell-bent objective of doing nothing to support the local shipping industry".I know that my colleague will no doubt be elaborating on that a bit later in this debate.It has been over two years now since the Minister for Transport and Regional Services received a report on how to improve Australian shipping. As I understand it, the report contained input from key industry players, and I bet it provided some very interesting reading. Yet the report has never been released. Could it be that it contains information too sensitive for the government or is uncomplimentary about its shipping policy? I suspect so. I wonder what this report had to say about maritime safety issues or the number of flag of convenience ships plying Australian waters, or whether it supports current cabotage provisions of the Navigation Act. These issues are inextricably linked to the future wellbeing of our shipping industry and maritime safety. As I said, there is an ever present threat to our marine environment. The flag of convenience fleet is on the increase and this government does not really support cabotage provisions.Nowadays we continually hear the coalition being accused of not listening to the electorate. In regard to the Australian shipping industry, this is a charge easily sustained. I mentioned the comments of the member for Melbourne Ports just a moment ago. The government would do well to listen to the outcome of the latest inquiry into ship safety conducted by the International Commission on Shipping. The independent commission was chaired by the Hon. Peter Morris, with impeccable credentials in the transport—and particularly maritime—industries. It was set up to inquire into and report on ways of combating substandard shipping. Its report, titled Ships, Slaves and Competition, was released earlier this month. The commission received more than 120 written submissions and commissioners travelled around the world gathering evidence during the year-long investigation. I note that some of the major concerns expressed to the commission were: the vital need for crew skills, competency, quality training and authentic qualifications; the failure of nations registering ships to ensure that the ships meet international maritime safety standards; the need for complete public accountability or transparency in shipping operations; the need for all those in the chain of responsibility to ensure that quality shipping is maintained and to help eradicate substandard shipping for the seas of the world; and the urgent need to end the horrific abuse and exploitation of seafarers. Indeed, as one Greek shipper who put in a submission to the inquiry said about the unfortunate modern-day slave conditions in shipping, `The fish stinks from the head.' I think it is very important that all those responsible for structuring and managing the industry are aware that it is their responsibility, along with government, to ensure that it is a safe, sustainable industry. As we have seen with previous reports, the International Commission on Shipping inquiry found that thousands of seafarers work in slave conditions with minimal safety, long hours for little or no pay, starvation diets, rape and beatings. The inquiry was told that crew have disappeared after complaints to officers and that employers practise the blacklisting of sailors who complain to unions. Surely those opposite would not condone this sort of thing, yet it seems that this government is a willing accomplice to those plotting the demise of the Australian shipping industry. How else could one interpret its obsession with doing away with cabotage provisions and its support for flag of convenience ships and, as a consequence, the threat to our marine environment?As I have said, unsafe ships have caused the majority of maritime and ecological disasters. The removal of cabotage provisions would result in a large influx of these types of vessels into Australia's domestic trade. Again, we support the principles of this amendment but seek rigorous investigation of the reservations that we have, particularly in relation to any threat to cabotage in terms of foreign vessels on the intrastate trade. 11:40:0025997McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I am pleased to be able to talk today on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 because shipping is a critically important industry for our nation. The Labor Party understands the economic and strategic importance of maintaining a vibrant, efficient and safe domestic shipping industry. As an island nation, Australia is greatly dependent on the shipping industry. Shipping plays a key role in our society, facilitating trade and generating wealth. The bill amends the Navigation Act 1912 to revise the division of responsibilities between the Commonwealth, the states and the Northern Territory for the safety regulation of Australian trading ships and foreign flag trading ships visiting Australia. As the shadow minister for transport, the honourable member for Batman, has already explained, Labor supports the main purpose of this bill but we have reservations which we will ensure the Senate legislative committee fully explores. Labor opposes the change in item 10 relating to cabotage and we will move to amend the bill when it is considered in detail. The central feature of the bill is to give the Commonwealth responsibility for vessels over 500 gross tonnage, grt, and the states and the Northern Territory responsibility for vessels under 500grt. As such, the Commonwealth will assume responsibility for the safety regulation of trading ships of 500grt or more whenever they voyage in Australian waters. Currently, responsibility for a vessel's safety rests with either the Commonwealth or the states and Northern Territory according to its voyage pattern alone. Five hundred grt is significant in that it is the size of a ship to which the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea applies. This bill broadly aligns Commonwealth jurisdiction with international convention obligations for vessel safety. It is important to note that under the provisions of this bill the Commonwealth will continue to regulate vessel safety for all trading ships proceeding on overseas voyages, regardless of their size. I note that, for the purposes of identifying the application of the act to a ship, a ship of at least 35 metres length is taken to be equivalent to a ship of at least 500 gross tonnage where the ship does not have a tonnage determined in accordance with the International Convention on Tonnage Measurements of Ships 1969. A very positive feature of this bill is that all foreign flag ships under 500 gross tonnage that voyage interstate or overseas will be covered. I see this provision as having a great impact on environmental safety. This should bring about a significant improvement to the vessel safety and regulatory regime presently operating in Australia. The bill should also maintain the already high standards of safety and environmental vigilance of which we are proud. As my electorate adjoins the coast of the Indian Ocean, with the popular recreational beaches of Scarborough and Trigg within its boundaries, I would hate to see an environmental disaster, of the sort that has recently been brought upon the people of France, brought upon my constituents by a ship of shame flying under a flag of convenience. Labor knows that efficiency improvements must be achieved only in the context of a safe and humane industry with professional standards of training and development for crews and with diligent monitoring of the structural integrity of ships operating off our shores. As the member for Batman alluded to earlier, the opposition will seek to amend the bill to remove the proposed changes to the application of part VI—coastal trading, cabotage provisions. In its current form, the bill proposes to quarantine the cabotage provisions from the impact of the revised jurisdiction. To date, the application of part VI for cabotage provisions has been limited by section 2 of the act. The result has been the situation where foreign vessels proceeding on intrastate voyages have not been covered by the cabotage provisions of the act. Because the cabotage provisions are part of a Commonwealth act and that act has only applied to interstate and overseas voyages, foreign ships operating within one state have dodged these provisions that apply to all other ships on the coastal trade.The consequence, quite simply, has been that foreign ships conducting domestic transport services within one state have been able to avoid paying domestic wages and ensuring domestic Australian conditions of service for crews. In his second reading speech, the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation informed the House that this bill also does not seek to change the present arrangements connected with part VI of the Navigation Act 1912, which regulates participation in the coasting trade, and that the functioning of part VI has been quarantined from the changes described in this bill.There is much that the minister could be doing. I would suggest that the minister might like to start at home with assistance to our Australian shipping industry. He could start by releasing and finalising the report on his desk that he received in 1998. That report was one conducted by senior shipping industry officials to improve the efficiency of the Australian shipping industry. It is my understanding that he did not like what it said. It did not recommend the bulldogs and balaclavas approach they used on the waterfront, so he has discarded it.But the government has form on this. Having already pursued a savage and ideologically driven attack on the workers in the maritime industry on the docks, it now seeks to undermine Australian maritime workers on the high seas. Up to 31 May 2000, the total funding provided to the Patrick group of companies was $102.1 million for 821 redundancies. This is about people's jobs, people's lives. The P&O group received $62.9 million for 552 redundancies—again, this is about people's jobs and people's lives. In total, $178 million was spent to shed labour in the stevedoring industry; that is, the government spent $178 million to help companies take jobs from Australian maritime workers on the docks.I suggest that the only beneficiaries of the government's reforms were the shareholders of Lang Corporation. The enemy of the worker, the member for Flinders, may well be gone from the portfolio of workplace relations, but the MUA is here to stay. Unfortunately, nothing has happened since the bulldog and balaclava days of the waterfront dispute. However, my memories of grim days on the community picket line at Fremantle docks give me a commitment to take a greater interest in waterfront issues and waterfront reform. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—You didn't actually stand there, did you?83CMcFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE—Yes, I did actually—for many days. Here we have an opportunity to do something to support the Australian shipping industry, to support Australian maritime workers, to support the crews of foreign ships and to ensure that they can enjoy the rights and standards of other Australian workers, but the government is up to its old tricks again of trying to undermine workers and the industry.The bill attempts to change the Navigation Act coverage, but limit that only to parts that would ensure this loophole was left open. Item 10 amends section 284 of the Navigation Act 1912 to disapply the revised application provisions of section 2 and to insert a separate application provision for part VI which replicates the current application provisions of section 2 of the act. The practical result is that part VI of the act continues to regulate only trading ships engaged on interstate voyages. This item preserves the existing application of part VI of the Navigation Act 1912 which licenses or permits ships to engage in the coasting trade.Arrangements for the economic regulation of coastal shipping through the existing licensing and permit systems are not to be affected by amendments to section 2 of the act. The current application of part VI of the act is determined by the interactions of sections 2, 7 and 284 of the act. Suffice to say, the effect of the amendment in item 10 is to introduce major change to the application of the act, but only part of its application. In spite of the government's rhetoric, it is clear that they will do anything to not give any ground on their entrenched ideological opposition to ensuring fair pay and safe conditions apply for all seafarers working on our coastal domestic transport task.One might imagine that the government's argument for these amendments is that the jurisdiction change contemplated by the Commonwealth only relates to the safety regulation powers. However, enshrining the current application in the revised part VI of the act makes it a clear intention of the parliament that coastal trading provisions not apply to the operation of foreign flag ships on intrastate voyages. This is an illogical position. Leaving part VI as it is, and therefore subject to the new section 2, gives a consistent application of the part to all coastal trade.The Labor Party supports the cabotage provisions of the Navigation Act and condemns the government for their abuse of the single voyage permit—SVP—provisions of the act to disadvantage and undermine the shipping industry. SVPs are administered by the Department of Transport and Regional Services on a one-off basis to foreign flag ships for the movement of cargo. In 1991-92, 203 SVPs were issued. Under this government's abuse of the system, by 1997-98, 779 SVPs were issued—more than triple the 1991-92 rate. There are particular implications for maritime workers from the government's abuse of SVPs. The replacement shipping companies and their work forces have no allegiance to Australia, pay no tax and are effectively guest labour in the Australian domestic transport sector.It is clear from the government's actions, and inactions, that cabotage is under attack. It has been said that the government has been colluding, even conspiring, with major mining companies which want to use cheaper overseas vessels and crews. A prime example of this was Western Mining's use of a foreign registered ship called the Algarve to move phosphate from Townsville—a foreign ship, with a foreign crew—a job that could have been done by one of the Australian coastal trading vessels. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—How much money did it save?83CMcFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE—The government issued single voyage permits to this group to allow this foreign vessel to trade on the Australian coast—foreigners working in our country, paying no tax, putting Australian maritime workers out under a piece of legislation designed to protect them, being circumvented by what some describe as criminal conspiracy between parties.The Algarve, registered in Liberia, using cheap foreign labour, with few overheads and no regulatory bodies pursuing it, was instrumental in putting Australian maritime workers out of a job—Western Mining and the government colluding to further decimate the Australian shipping industry. Yes, this government has form. When asked about these arrangements, Ian McGregor of Western Bulk Shipping said that he did not think that he had done anything wrong. When asked if he had won the contract with Western Mining—because he paid less tax by exploiting the loophole in the cabotage provisions—he confirmed that Western Bulk Shipping did pay less tax than domestic competitors. Again, we have a government that is prepared to genuflect to the big end of town in its ruthless obsession with destroying organised labour in the Australian shipping industry.In 1994, the number of major vessels in Australia's coastal trade numbered 78. By March 1999, numbers had been culled to 56—a dramatic 28 per cent reduction. Today's merchant fleet, apart from ANL container ships and BHP vessels, comprises a sprinkling of vessels operated by Canada Steamship Lines of Australia (CSL), Queensland Alumina, Queensland Cement, CSR, Stolt NYK and the oil companies. The Australian National Line once operated 32 ships; it now operates just two vessels. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services highlighted his ignorance of the problems faced by the Australian shipping industry in a press release on the 24 November 2000 in which he said: ... the Labor Party and the maritime unions seek to give the impression that there are only two possibilities in relation to the movement of domestic cargo, that is, Australian ships or foreign ships. What the Labor Party and the maritime unions fail to understand is that there is a third possibility. A buyer will source product overseas if it can be landed at a lower cost than domestic product moved around the Australian coast.I would like to share with the House an example of what can happen under the `third' option the minister describes. This is the story of Sulteng 1. Shortly after the Sulteng 1 left Christmas Island one day, after having discharged fresh water because it had been overloaded with phosphates at the port, the boat sank. Officially, the Sulteng 1 was an Indonesian ship owned by one company and brokered by another Perth based company called Assets. Captain Neil McGovern, the harbourmaster at Christmas Island, set up the Perth based company Assets with the claimed aim of assisting the Singapore parent company Assets Ship Owners Pty Ltd into Australia and brokering cargo. Captain McGovern owned one quarter of the company, and his wife owned another quarter. As a result of this arrangement, when the Sulteng 1 sank the Maritime Investigation Unit's director did not investigate the incident because it was an Indonesian ship. The director later said:If the Indonesians approach us and ask for help we would be pleased to give it.This is an example of a situation that is possible under the `third possibility' the minister describes. A lot of people might think that Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands are a long way away, but they are part of Australia's territory and any pollution that affects the islands and the people of the islands directly or indirectly affects Australia. The damage to the integrity of the waters and marine life of the Christmas and Cocos islands is quite devastating to the people. This is the shame of it. In small islands like these, a long way out from the coast, there is a lot of disinterest in Australia about what happens there. People often take the attitude, `It is a long way away and it is nothing really to do with us.' But the people on those islands rely on the surrounding seas to provide one of their main food sources—fish. So any pollution there and any more incidents like the Sulteng 1 will affect those people. Any subsequent health costs will be to the Australian taxpayer and to the Australian budget. It is also about the integrity of people's lives. It is about people having the right to live in an environment that is safe and protected. If it had happened off the eastern seaboard with its high population or off the Western Australian coast, there would certainly have been a lot more media attention than the couple of brief items, as good as they were, that brought out the issue. One of the media articles questions the structure of the Assets company, the role of the harbourmaster and the need for an investigation. In Western Australia, we will never forget the break-up of the Kirki and those vivid images on television of this ship adrift, and the possibility of not only pollution of the Western Australian coastline but also the loss of seamen's lives, and hence the loss to their families and communities, because of a ship that was in very poor condition that broke up in heavy seas. It was not a particularly huge storm, just heavy seas. Those images on the television woke up the people of Western Australia to the issue of safety of ships at sea and to the issue of people being paid Australian wages and working under Australian conditions while in Australian waters. Again, it comes down to skills, expertise and an efficient, well-trained up maritime industry. In conclusion, I urge the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to listen to Australian maritime workers, to listen to the industry and to listen to the people of Australia, who are sick and tired of unemployment levels due to contracting out or arrangements being bypassed such as I have described. I urge the minister to provide some support and to give clearer policy directions than he has been doing.11:58:0026001Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, at the table, interjected during the member for Stirling's contribution: `How much did it cost?' I think that goes to the core of the issue. How much did it cost? The government is prepared to risk everything to get the cheapest price possible. This is the kind of attitude that leads to unsafe, unseaworthy ships sailing around the coastline of Australia with poorly trained crews. This is the conflict that exists within the shipping industry: a government that is ideologically driven to destroy our Australian shipping industry through bringing in foreign owned ships and letting foreign flag ships sail around the coast of Australia to compete on unfair grounds with Australian ships. The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 before us today seeks to amend the Navigation Act 1912, the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993. The legislation amends the Navigation Act 1912 to give the Commonwealth responsibility for vessels over 500 gross registered tonnes and to give responsibility for vessels under 500 gross registered tonnes to the states and territories. Included in this are some opting-out clauses which I, like the shadow minister, have some very serious concerns about, particularly in relation to the working conditions of seafarers.The bill also amends the application of part VI, the coastal trading cabotage provisions, to quarantine these provisions from the impact of the revised jurisdictions—something I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration would support wholeheartedly. This creates a loophole for foreign flagged ships on intrastate coastal trade to avoid cabotage provisions. Madam Deputy Speaker Kelly, this poses a real threat to both our shipping industry and the environment. There was the recent incident with the Bunga Teratai Satu, one of the best equipped ships, that occurred in Queensland not far from your electorate. I think this really brings into question the issue of foreign flagged ships and the competency of crews. It has the potential to cause so much damage to our environment, to the fragile and vulnerable coastline of Australia that is very dear to all our hearts and that we want to see survive and be protected. This government is driven by an ideological desire to destroy the Maritime Union of Australia and to maximise profit to those in the shipping industry who seek to do this by exploiting their workers. Of course the long-term casualties in this are our Australian shipping industry and our Australian environment. The government has no commitment to an Australian shipping industry. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services is quite happy to see it eroded and destroyed by creating conditions whereby the Australian shipping industry will be unable to compete with foreign flagged ships. They do not have the same safety requirements, their employment conditions are very different and they will offer the lowest cost possible for transporting cargo. All this does is put our industry under threat. It also puts our environment under threat and the workers within those industries.In my own electorate of Shortland the coal loader Wallarah carries coal from Catherine Hill Bay to the port of Newcastle. It is an Australian flagged ship subject to Australian laws and standards. I believe this government and the minister for transport would like to see a situation exist where coal carried by the Wallarah was in fact carried by a foreign flagged ship—maybe one from Panama that would be exempt from the coastal cabotage requirements. We could have a carrier that was in poor condition, unseaworthy—a rust bucket. It could be crewed by very inexperienced, unskilled and maybe even a poorly fed crew, and the result of this could be horrendous. As that ship travelled from Catherine Hill Bay, it could run aground and cause enormous environmental damage to an area that has a pristine environment that can be enjoyed by all the people who live between Catherine Hill Bay and Newcastle. This would have a catastrophic effect.I will return to the government's ideological obsession with the MUA. It will go to absolutely any length to destroy the MUA. We saw how it was prepared to send people to Dubai and to turn dogs and men in balaclavas against workers. Every day in question time it reinforces its hatred for the MUA, its hatred for unions. It is all about breaking the union at the expense of our Australian shipping industry. It will not stop until the MUA and, along with it, our shipping industry are destroyed. The government forgets the importance of a vibrant shipping industry that provides not only jobs for Australian seafarers but also numerous shore benefits such as insurance, lawyers and managers—all industries that create jobs for Australians. In a time when jobs are shrinking and when we have a government that does not have a commitment to Australian workers, we need to preserve every job we possibly can. All this is under threat from this ideologically driven government and minister.Whilst this government is driven by an ideological hatred of the MUA, I appreciate the work of the union and its members, in particular, its commitment to creating a safe and viable shipping industry in Australia. Unlike the minister and his government, the MUA recognises the threat that substandard foreign flagships pose to our Australian environment. I commend the union and its members for their efforts in trying to protect our environment. The more recent efforts of the MUA and its members in ensuring the enforcement of strong quarantine regulations to prevent foot-and-mouth disease spreading in Australia should be recognised and, once again, I commend them for the work they have done in that area. Recently, at the port of Newcastle, some farm machinery covered in mud and dirt arrived from the UK. The actions of the members of the Maritime Union in Newcastle ensured that no contamination from that machinery was transferred to the Hunter.At this point I would like to spend a little time analysing the report of the International Commission on Shipping—ICONS. That report is entitled Ships, slaves and competition and I must say that it has already been mentioned a number of times by previous speakers. That gives you an idea of the importance of this very excellent report. The committee was chaired by the Hon. Peter Morris, the former member for Shortland—my predecessor. He is a former Minister for Transport and he was the chair of the transport committee here in parliament when the Ships of shame report was produced. He is a world-renowned expert on shipping. The ICONS report is an excellent report and does credit not only to the Hon. Peter Morris but also to all those who were involved with it. ICONS played a role in bringing all the parties together to establish a common linkage in looking at ways to improve international shipping, to provide safer conditions for seafarers, to create a safer environment and to protect our world environment. The title Ships, slaves and competition is, in itself, very interesting and really teases out thoughts about the whole issue. Of course, `ships' refers to the international operators and `slaves' refers to the many thousands of seafarers who are exploited, abused and ill treated by those in pursuit of lower freight rates and those who are not working in true competition. That brings me to competition—unequal competition that exists between those shipping companies and those involved in the shipping industry who do abide by the rules, and those who actually provide substandard shipping.This report deals with a number of areas. The most frequently raised issues, both by way of submissions and in discussion, were: criticism of the performance of classification societies and the failure of flag states to carry out their responsibilities; ill treatment and underpayment of crew, port state control, crew competency, crew availability and fraudulent certificates; the failure of IMO members to support the IMO in the performance of its duties; and an almost unanimous call for full transparency of information in the industry—something which, if I could say so, this government should note very carefully when it is looking at the Australian shipping industry, and may I be so bold as to suggest that in all areas of government transparency is very important. The list also includes criticism of the Convention on Standards of Training Certification and Watch Keeping—STCW—white list process; passport holders without maritime qualifications; non-compliance with ILO conventions; the horrors of the international fishing industry; and the failure to give adequate recognition to quality shipping. They are all the things that we in Australia should be fighting against. All those things are important if we are to preserve our Australian shipping industry.I now turn to the recommendations of ICONS. The recommendations were: a stronger supervision of classification societies by the European Commission and tougher policy applications by the societies to their clients; improved flag state performance; tighter port state controls and implementation of reward systems for quality ships; more rigorous inspections for ISM compliance; and severe penalties for charterers and major shippers using substandard ships—and substandard ships will appear in Australia unless the government is prepared to ensure that we do not have these substandard foreign flagships operating intrastate. Further recommendations were: the establishment of a confidential ship safety incident reporting system—COSHIRS; deterrent financial penalties on owners of detained ships; reduction in multiple inspections of ships; stricter control of manning agencies and prohibition of blacklisting of seafarers; ending the abuse and ill-treatment of seafarers and their families; and support for abandoned seafarers and seafarers welfare organisations.This is in recognition of the conditions under which so many seafarers work on these foreign flagged ships, conditions which I am sure this government would like to see enforced within the Australian shipping industry. That can be the only reason it pursues the MUA to the extent it does. The MUA is about protecting the conditions of seafarers, which we on this side of the House are determined will happen. Other recommendations include: lifting training and qualifications; ending fraudulent practices on crewing; support for international agencies such as IMO and ILO; and designation of ports of distress. These are excellent recommendations which Australia should support 100 per cent. I implore the minister to do so because it is the one thing that can ensure some form of equal competition and it will benefit our Australian shipping industry. In conclusion, I implore the minister to make a real commitment to our Australian shipping industry. There are many thousands of Australians who work within the industry or in industries that are aligned with the shipping industry. We are an island nation, as many other speakers have already said. We should make the most of this. To do that we need a strong shipping industry.12:16:0026004Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I am pleased to speak on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. What has been made clear in the discussion so far, and I am sure will continue in the discussion to come, is that Labor members care about the working conditions of seafarers and about the environment. To have such a long speakers list on this legislation reiterates and re-emphasises that fact. The main purposes of this bill are to amend the Navigation Act 1912 and to rearrange Commonwealth, state and territory responsibilities regarding safety regulation of Australian trading ships and foreign flagged trading ships visiting Australia. It also amends the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 to reflect, as far as possible, the jurisdictional rearrangements proposed by amending the Navigation Act 1912. This bill has finally come up for debate, having been introduced into this parliament on 31 August 2000 after ongoing negotiations and subsequent agreement of the states to this legislation.The Navigation Act 1912 is the basic Commonwealth legislation that regulates most safety related operational aspects of overseas and interstate voyages by Australian and foreign flagged trading ships. Why do we have a Navigation Act dating back to 1912? As has been pointed out before and I will re-emphasise, Australia is a nation on a continent. Since Federation—that is, since the end of trade between the colonies—Australia has relied on shipping for trade, tourism, defence and security. The bill amends the Navigation Act to an arrangement based on the size of vessels to be regulated and to give the Commonwealth responsibility for vessels over 500 gross tonnage and thereby to give the states and the Northern Territory responsibility for vessels under 500 gross tonnage. This change will bring within the coverage of the Navigation Act trading ships over 500 gross tonnage proceeding on an intrastate voyage and exclude another class of trading ship previously covered by that act, that is, Australian trading ships under 500 gross tonnage proceeding on an interstate voyage.The bill contains an option for an owner of a trading ship of more than 500 gross tonnage to apply for a declaration that the Navigation Act 1912 not apply to the ship and allows for AMSA to make such a declaration subject to conditions and consistent with prescribed guidelines. This is a significant provision and is one of the reasons why Labor is referring this bill to a Senate committee for closer scrutiny. The bill also amends the application of part 4, which contains the cabotage provisions, to quarantine those provisions from the impact of the revised jurisdiction—implications which we on this side of the House believe require a lot closer scrutiny than is being given in this bill today.The Ships of shame inquiry was chaired by the former member for Shortland, the Hon. Peter Morris, who has had accolades bestowed upon him in this debate. I would like to add to those for his contribution to the shipping industry both during his time as the member for Shortland and as the former Minister for Transport, and more recently as the Chair of the International Commission on Shipping. Since 1988, there have been various parliamentary inquiries into Australia's shipping industry which have looked into the health and safety of workers, labour standards and foreign flagged vessels. Let us make it quite clear what we are talking about. The flag of convenience system allows a vessel to be built in one country, owned in another and registered in a third. The ships of shame are also called rust buckets, coffin ships and casino ships. Flag of convenience ships fly the flags of other nations because those countries may have cheaper or no registration costs, lower taxes, poorer standards and cheap, mainly Third World, labour. These flag of convenience vessels pollute our oceans and they threaten our coastlines. The ships of shame make up only one in five of the world's fleet but account for more than half the worldwide ship losses and marine pollution. As the shadow minister has stated, this Minister for Transport and Regional Services Anderson and previous Howard government ministers have hung Australian shipping out to dry. It is not just the Labor Party saying that. The Financial Review last year quoted Lachlan Payne, the CEO of the Australian Shipowners Association. He said:What's happened is that the Australian Government since 1996 has steadfastly refused to do anything to sponsor an Australian shipping industry. They have bent over backwards to facilitate the requirements of the users of shipping with the consequent increase in the use of foreign ships even in Australia's domestic industry. As I said, that came from the CEO of the Australian Shipowners Association as recently as November last year. We need to question why the Howard government has taken this attitude towards the shipping industry. I do not particularly believe that the Howard government has really been out to undermine Australia's trade and defence capability. I would think that the government's ministers would have a bit more integrity than to undermine one of Australia's largest industry areas. So let us look at why this may have happened. I believe that the Howard government has used the shipping industry, unfortunately, to maintain a sustained ideological attack on the MUA. As recently as yesterday, we had government ministers in here crowing about their waterfront reforms. From answers to questions at the Senate estimates hearing in May, we found out some of the details of the costs of the reforms of the then minister, Mr Reith. Up to 31 May 2000, the total funding provided to the Patrick group of companies—remember it was the Patrick group of companies, headed by Chris Corrigan, that brought to the waterfront the dogs, and the security guards, clad in balaclavas, who had been trained in Dubai—was $102,192,291 for 821 redundancies. That is over $100 million provided to the company to help the government get rid of the MUA. Minister Reith and this government failed in that respect. The P&O group received nearly $63,000,000 for 552 redundancies. These are companies that were paid to sack workers. Make no mistake about it: these companies were paid by the federal government to sack workers. During this time we found that the share price of Lang Corporation rose from $1.16 in January 1998 to $9.09. As the shadow minister suggested, the only beneficiaries of Reith's reforms were the shareholders of Lang Corporation; it certainly was not those workers whose employers were paid by this government for them to be sacked.There have been five years of government neglect in the shipping industry which needs to be addressed in Australia or we could face a major shipping disaster. We have already faced shipping disasters, and I will outline a few cases, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me tell you what the Maritime Safety Authority inspector found on the Malaysian flag container ship Bunga Teratai Satu when she came into Port Botany on 8 August last year. The safety inspector found that the navigational equipment was not working properly and that various other equipment on board that boat was not in safe working order. However, in defending his decision to award the Bunga Teratai Satu a coastal permit to trade in Australia, John Anderson, the minister for transport, said that Australian shipping was uncompetitive. So the minister allowed foreign vessels that were clearly unsafe, and which AMSA inspectors have found to be clearly unsafe, to travel in Australian waters. Our ALP shadow minister, Martin Ferguson, called for Mr Anderson to reveal why he allowed the Bunga Teratai Satu to operate on the Australian coast just days before authorities discovered these serious safety breaches. At that time the shadow minister said: Australia has a Navigation Act designed to protect our environment and national interest. But this Government's policy of issuing special permits to foreign vessels appears to be encouraging foreign ships to deliberately bypass those provisions. The Bunga Teratai Satu was not the only shipping disaster that spring. In separate incidents five seafarers were burnt to death off the Australian coast in November. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you begin to imagine what that would be like, and the kinds of working conditions those people were working under? At the same time as the Bunga Teratai Satu was being blasted off the reef, the surviving crew of the Greek owned Maltese flag of convenience XL were imprisoned and adrift just 70 kilometres from Port Hedland. The vessel caught fire on 10 November, killing two seafarers. Five days later, three more seafarers perished in an explosion on the Singapore flagged, Norwegian managed container ship Kota Wirawan off our national marine park just 200 nautical miles from Norfolk Island. Incredibly, while the Bunga Teratai Satu was still grounded on the reef, Malaysian International Shipping, the company which owns this ship—a ship which was given the go-ahead to operate in Australian waters by this minister but which ran aground on the Barrier Reef, as we all read in the papers—was being bestowed with honours at the Australian shipping and transport awards for the year 2000.Incidents like these are almost daily events in Australian ports. There are many tales of horror since that first Ships of shame inquiry. An Indonesian radio officer, Budi Santoso, perished at sea after leaping overboard from the Panama flagged vessel Glory Cape to escape a mugging with iron bars. There was an Indian seafarer, Suhrid Bhowmik, whose hand turned gangrenous after being denied urgent medical treatment off Geraldton. Honduran Rommel Salvadore was rescued only minutes from death after climbing overboard from the Panama flagged vessel MV Hunter off Newcastle to escape abuse. Korean Bai Hyeong Ki was disfigured for life by sulfuric acid due to slack safety on board the Panama flagged vessel Sunrise Sakura in Brisbane. An unnamed Filipino seafarer was burnt alive with a shipload of Australian sheep on board the Panama flagged livestock carrier Uniceb. Two BHP workers were injured when the iron ore carrier Gigi 2 broke up in Port Kembla. These are in addition to the more than 2,000 cases of seafarers marooned around the world and the 450 detentions of unsafe foreign vessels by Australian port control during 1996 to 1998 alone.In the year 2000 alone, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority detained 82 foreign vessels. Other incidents last year included, in August, the tanker Laura D'Amato which, as you would remember, discharged 294,000 litres of oil into Sydney Harbour. We all saw the clean-up happening. That clean-up cost has been estimated at $6.5 million. Another incident was when officers of the Panamanian registered bulk carrier Sea Star Bridge were charged after their ship allegedly ran down a prawn trawler, killing its captain, off New South Wales in June. Last May the Panamanian registered New Reach strayed from a shipping channel and ran aground on the edge of the Great Barrier Reef. It carried 1,000 tonnes of fuel. Imagine the environmental disaster if that fuel had been able to seep into our ocean. Again transport minister John Anderson said that the use of these foreign ships—remember they pose a humanitarian and environmental risk—was better than having cargo pile up on wharves because no Australian ship was available to carry it. I really do not think that is good enough for an Australian government which purports to be supportive of humanitarian issues right around the world.As has been reported, just this month we have had the most recent report released—again from Peter Morris, who chaired the International Commission on Shipping—called Ships, slaves and competition. Mr Morris described the situation—and this is an 18-month-old inquiry that has gone on right around the world—of tens of thousands of seafarers who are being exploited and subjected to physical and psychological abuse worldwide. He was quoted as saying: Life at sea is modern slavery. Their workplace is a ... sweatshop.Thirteen years after Australia's original Ships of shame inquiry, we still have incidents like those that I have just outlined occurring in Australian waters. I too would like to congratulate the MUA and their members for the consistent work that they have done to alert the Australian community to the fact that these ships of shame exist, the fact that these ships of shame have been supported by the Howard government to sail in Australian waters, and the threat that these ships pose to both human lives and our environment. This most recent report found that up to 10 per cent of the shipping industry cut corners with staff and safety, often to meet low freight rates demanded by cargo owners.In conclusion, I would like to state Labor's position on the maritime industry and the shipping industry of Australia. It is no secret to Australia's community, shipping industry participants or the workers in the shipping industry, but I would just like to read it out.For maritime transport, Labor will:ensure that Australian domestic shipping is crewed by workers operating under Australian award conditions under established cabotage arrangements;encourage the continued operation of an Australian coastal shipping industry—and in doing so ensure that Australian shipowners continue to employ Australian crews and receive support comparable with international standards; andpursue individual port productivity improvement strategies with the direct involvement of port authorities, stevedoring companies, unions and port users through initiatives such as increased competition, productivity targets in terminal leases, increased investment and enterprise bargaining.This is how Labor will go about supporting and strengthening our shipping industry and how Labor will go about ensuring that such instances as those that I have outlined today do not keep occurring. We will do it in an inclusive manner; we will not go out there and particularly bash the owners or the workers in the Australian shipping industry. The only way that this minister has tackled the shipping industry has been to go out and attack the MUA. We promise that we will be all-inclusive. We will include all participants in the shipping industry to ensure that Australia's shipping industry remains viable and competitive. (Time expired)12:36:0026007Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—In supporting this legislation, the member for Batman indicated that we have brought forward an important proviso in the form of an amendment to schedule 1 of the proposed Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. The amendment arises as a result of unclear jurisdiction for ships under 500 tonnes on intrastate voyages. As the shadow minister indicated, we are concerned that these provisions leave open a loophole in the proposed legislation. Referring this schedule of the bill to a Senate committee, as Labor proposes, is a good idea, in my view. I have much more faith in the thought-out policies of the shadow minister for transport than I have in the current government.This legislation particularly came to mind yesterday during question time when related issues of concern in the maritime area were discussed. The members for Page and Forrest were crowing in questions that they addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services about the alleged benefit to Australia of the change in the crane rate lift in our ports. The questions, and indeed the answers, were extremely poorly thought out. Indeed, the member for Fisher was in here earlier questioning the member for Shortland about the alleged benefit of these changes on the Australian docks to the Australian people. I want to particularly address that issue because I believe it goes to the government's standing on all of these issues and to the fact that they have not thought them through. I was astounded when a former minister for small business, the member for Forrest, asked one of these questions yesterday in an attempt to make out that there was great microeconomic reform and benefit to the Australian people from the crane rate lift on the Australian docks. I want to go through this very carefully. Those opposite referred particularly to the Waterline No. 26 report which says that we had an average crane rate lift on the Australian docks of 28½ containers per hour in December. Everyone supports efficiency on the Australian docks, and that is a very good thing in itself, but I want to make the point that was made by Mick O'Leary from the MUA on the AM program on 5 December 2000 when he said: That's good but, what's so magical about this figure? In real terms it is not just a matter of measuring productivity rates through increased crane rates. It's a simplistic view.The real issue on the waterfront is reliability. A ship might only require 15 lifts an hour to meet its `window'.That, of course, is an elementary point to anyone who knows anything about Australian ports. Sometimes a ship might not need 25 containers an hour lifted onto it. What they need is the correct amount of containers lifted onto them within the `window' that they are in the port so they can get in and out of there as quickly as possible.More important is what is reflected in the ill thought-out answers to questions yesterday and, indeed, the questions themselves—that is, the benefits to the Australian people that these alleged reforms to Australian ports that were made during the dispute with the MUA have resulted in. In my view, the minister continues to remain silent on the major issue, and that is the cost of stevedoring charges before and after the waterfront dispute. The Australian Peak Shippers Association and other authorities on cargo shipping have repudiated the government's claim that higher productivity crane rate lifts have led to lower waterfront charges. Stevedoring costs have not declined and, in some cases, apparently, they have risen. According to the Australian Peak Shippers Association:The fact is that exporters and importers have received no benefit from the `water-front reform'. Waterfront charges have not been reduced. If they had shipowners would have passed them on ... Mr Frank Beaufort of the Australian Peak Shippers Association said that in November last year. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services continues to link the decline of export freight rates over the past decade with waterfront reform. The issues of stevedoring costs and shipping costs are separate issues. In answer to a question that I put to him, the minister said that decreases in freight rate charges are largely due to an oversupply in shipping, and that is the real reason some freight rate charges are down. The most important beneficiary of the increased crane rate lifts is not the average importer or exporter, and I would have thought this particularly should occur to former ministers for small business or members of the National Party who are interested in exporting, and cheaper exporting at that, to benefit primary producers; the major beneficiary has been the Lang Corporation whose share price has gone from $1.16 in January 1998 to over $12 now. I find it astounding that the Australian people have paid $178 million in redundancies to the Lang Corporation, yet importers and exporters are having to pay the same charges as before the dispute. Where is the micro-economic reform? The member for Flinders is regarded as a hero by his replacement, as was said yesterday in question time. I just cannot see the benefit. All I can see is what is well known by the Australian people: this is a government that is driven simply by an ideological hatred of the MUA. The government has given no rational benefit to the Australian people from these alleged benefits in the crane rate lift. It is all very well if the increased productivity had led to cheaper costs for importers and exporters, but it simply has not. As the member for Stirling pointed out, it has simply led to $178 million worth of redundancies being paid from Australian taxpayers' pockets and fed through to the Lang Corporation with no benefit being passed on to Australian importers and exporters. The member for Flinders, the former minister responsible for this area, said that the dispute with the MUA was designed to yield $1 billion in savings for exporters. But Chris Corrigan, Patrick's Chief Executive and Managing Director of the parent company, Lang Corporation, is on the public record as saying that he has not given any undertaking to the government to pass on the benefits of waterfront reform. This is extraordinary. Neither the current and the former Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business nor the Minister for Transport and Regional Services has even pressured Mr Corrigan or Lang Corporation to pass on the benefits of micro-economic reform, of the extra work of maritime workers, of the higher productivity in crane rate lifts, to the Australian people. What are we spending our $178 million in redundancies for? That is what I would like to know. It is not just the Australian Peak Shippers Association and the MUA that point out that these things are not being passed on. David Trebeck, the architect of the original government plan for waterfront reform, has said that there is no evidence that the benefits flowing to shipping companies are being passed on to exporters. I asked the minister for transport to at least speak to Lord Sterling of P&O when he was in London at the `wing-ding', the `big gig', that the Prime Minister staged there for the Centenary of Federation—which the Leader of the Australian Democrats, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister all attended, with the bands and the huge cost to the Australian taxpayer—and ask him whether they would lower freight charges and stevedoring costs. At this stage, we have had no answer from the Minister for Transport and Regional Services on that issue.Furthermore, the Deputy Prime Minister's interview with Lloyd's List following a recent international shipping symposium on safe shipping should be of great interest to this House. It particularly goes to the government's credibility on maritime issues. He said that the government did not want to see Australian shipping die but that it was determined that, in the national interest, the Australian community would have the lowest shipping costs while operating in a safe and reliable manner. That is the essence of what this government stands for. It stands for the lowest price possible regardless of the service delivered. It is not concerned about the national security implications that were quoted from General Cosgrove, who praised Australian maritime workers for their contribution to the Timor effort. It is not concerned about the possible environmental effects of its policies. It is simply concerned with the lowest price. This is a market driven government that has no other value than the lowest common denominator, the value of the dollar, and I believe that this is why it will be chucked out in six months time.Let us have a quick look at some of the incidents that have taken place along the Australian coast—the kinds of incidents that would be avoided if this government were properly interested in cabotage and in seeing that Australian ships are able to do the same kind of work, instead of giving single-permit voyages, as it is doing increasingly, and, as the Deputy Prime Minister says, just being concerned with the issue of price. I want to mention one incident that I thought was particularly incredible. It took place off Port Kembla in 1998. A bottle was tossed off one of these ships, and in the bottle was a message. The bottle was picked up in the harbour at Port Kembla, and the message said:Please, if you can, call ITF because we have big problem on board. No money, no food, no water. Thank you.This related to an incident on 12 April 1998 when a Romanian crew abroad a Greek owned, Panamanian flag of convenience—a ship of shame—the Tomis Future, was noticed by a local fisherman within earshot of the vessel. The mariners waved frantically until he brought his craft closer, and then they threw the message in the bottle overboard to him. The fisherman took it back to the port, and eventually it found its way to the ITF affiliate, the MUA. ITF Australia got the crew off the ship and fed, paid and repatriated. This is not an isolated case; this is one of the dramas being enacted almost daily around our coast and around the world.The Australian Maritime Safety Authority, AMSA, is the government agency responsible for maritime pollution—although, in my view, it seems to be increasingly reluctant to pursue claims about these ships of shame and their releasing of pollutants into Australian waters. I wonder why AMSA failed to take action over the bulk carrier Joint Spirit, which arrived last year in Adelaide. Joint Spirit had deliberately altered its engine room plumbing to allow oily waste to be dumped at sea rather than retained on board. AMSA failed to take action. The 1997 built 23,400-tonne dead weight ship Joint Spirit is owned by Kambra Kisen of Hiroshima and is managed by Astro Shipmanagement of Manila under dual Panamanian-Philippines registry. For its voyage to Adelaide in May of last year—we are not talking about the Ships of shame report that the member for Charlton talked about in 1992—the ship had a Korean captain and a mainland Chinese crew. While the vessel was loading barley for Japan, a Chinese crew member of the ship found his way to the Adelaide Mission to Seafarers, where he explained to the pastor in broken English about the environmental abuse taking place on Joint Spirit. He had photographs, moreover, which showed that this ship had, over a two-week period, dumped its oily sludge straight into the ocean while the vessel travelled through Australian coastal waters and while at anchorage in Adelaide. He also explained that the crew's wages were being withheld, but his main concern was over environmental issues. This is one of the reasons why the opposition are very concerned with cabotage and why we think it is not simply an issue of interest to the MUA but a matter of concern to all Australians. Fortunately, we have voluntary organisations like the Stella Maris mission for seafarers, an organisation which cares for the wellbeing of the crews of these ships of shame, these flags of convenience ships. I recently received a telephone call from the mission. They were wondering whether a cricket ground could be found for an Indian crew that had been at sea for several months and whether they could play there for a couple of hours. With a few quick phone calls, they were in contact with the South Melbourne District Cricket Club, which I am very pleased to tell the House offered their ground to the Indian seafarers. It seems like a small thing to do, but it was very important to these sailors, who were tired, dispirited and worried about whether their families had been affected by the earthquake in India. I must pay tribute to the members of the South Melbourne District Cricket Club who welcomed these sailors and made a real difference to the crew's brief stopover in Melbourne.The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 amends the Navigation Act 1912 to revise the division of responsibilities between the Commonwealth and states and the Northern Territory for the safe regulation of Australian trading ships and foreign flagged trading ships visiting Australia. It also amends the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993, seeing that these acts are as far as possible aligned with the coverage under the amended Navigation Act 1912. Labor's amendment, to be moved by the member for Batman, is entirely sensible, and part of schedule 1 should be referred to the Senate committee.I conclude by saying that I believe that the difference that the new minister for transport, the member for Batman, would show under a government led by Mr Beazley would be manifest in judging issues of such importance as our shipping industry not simply on its dollar value. They would have a rounded picture where elements of national security, environment and, of course, efficiency would all be taken into consideration. The opposition supports this legislation. We would like the amendment to the schedule to be referred to the Senate committee. We have a different mentality in dealing with all of these issues, and I thought it was important to make it clear that we do and would have a completely separate attitude to the `market-only' orientation of this current government.12:54:0026010Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Although this legislation has been around for some time, I believe that the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 has been introduced much too early, certainly before some of the important issues—as my colleague the member for Melbourne Ports has identified—have been finalised. Indeed, the best we can say is that this bill is incomplete, and the opposition will seek to amend it on this basis. This government—the government that we have in Australia at the moment—has absolutely no interest in shipping and less interest in the welfare of those who go to sea in ships. The National Party, with their rural background, talk about low cost shipping. Low cost shipping comes at a cost and too often, as we have seen in Australia, that cost is human lives. This bill amends the Navigation Act 1912 to rearrange governmental responsibilities concerning ship safety regulation. It also amends the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 to reflect the rearrangement of government responsibilities. Earlier in this debate I listened with great interest to the honourable member for Grey's remarks. Although I have the greatest possible personal regard for him, one must ask who was he trying to fool or impress with the nonsense that he spoke of about the former Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business needing personal protection as he moved around Australia? Who was it that at midnight a couple of years ago ordered mad dogs and balaclava-wearing thugs onto the waterfront of Australia? What protection was there for the workers chased out of their work by mad dogs and balaclava-wearing, baton-wielding thugs? The then Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is now claiming he needs protection after his action on the waterfront. Who needs the protection?Having dealt with that nonsense from the member for Grey, I turn back to the bill. The area of this bill that most concerns me is the unclear use of the opting-out provisions relating to occupational health and safety issues. The opting-out provision allows for vessel owners to remove themselves from the Commonwealth jurisdiction for maritime safety regulation, occupational health and safety legislation and compensation arrangements. It is well recognised that the Commonwealth's provisions in terms of occupational health and safety and compensation are generally much more favourable than those provided for under state and territory legislation.In 1995 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure in a report on an inquiry into ship safety—one that followed the internationally acclaimed Ships of Shame report of that same committee; and you, Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, would know this committee as you, like me, are a member of that committee—to deal with the issue of the relationship between Commonwealth and state occupational health and safety legislation and the Navigation Act 1912, recommended:The Minister for Transport initiate an inquiry into the relationships, interfaces and interactions between Commonwealth and State Occupational Health and Safety legislation, the Navigation Act and its delegated legislation.I cannot find any governmental action on the committee's recommendation, but if this bill is meant to address this deficiency it is a failure. The opposition was assured by the departmental briefing that guidelines dealing with the possibility of vessel owners engaging in a smorgasbord of shopping for the lowest possible labour protection for vessel crew would be agreed with the states and this agreement would have been finalised by the time the bill was introduced.It must be said that the standard of shipping is slowly improving throughout the world, but an area that is not improving is that of crew conditions and crew safety. Crews deserve to have certain knowledge that their working conditions are protected and that, if they are injured, settlements will be quickly and favourably resolved. I make the point that in Australia we should not permit any ship in our jurisdiction that has work conditions lower than those generally accepted in Australia. It is not good enough to have Third World conditions on ships plying around the Australian coast. Ships must have an adequate standard—the same standards that we have here in Australia. Earlier in this debate, the honourable member for Hughes spoke about Australia being girt by sea. This is all the more reason why Australia requires important legislation dealing with conditions of ships at sea. It is important that we have this legislation. We have seen this in the Ships of shame report. As I said earlier, in many parts of the world the quality of shipping has improved, but our former colleague, Peter Morris in his most recent report Ships, slaves and competition shows that many countries profess total support for the IMO and international uniformity, but they are applying conditions of access to their ports. What the general public and this parliament need to realise is that cheap freight comes at the cost of human rights and of human lives. The International Commission on Shipping, which I have just referred to, shows that thousands of seafarers are exploited and subject to physical and psychological abuse worldwide. Peter Morris has said:Life at sea is modern slavery ... Their workplace is a floating sweatshop.It is not just the MUA or the ITWF that sees this abuse; so does Missions to Seamen. They see the daily fight for wages, medical help and repatriation. This sort of exploitation should not happen in this modern age. It is not just a matter of wages, but also of crew abuse and environmental plunder. These are all linked. The same ships that abuse their crews also pollute our oceans. At the same time that ships threaten our coastline, crew members are often subject to all sorts of conditions, not least fires and other things. Others jump ship after standing abuse for years. I have said many times in this House that many crew members on foreign flag vessels go overboard on their journey around the Australian coast. Someone may see the International Transport Federation in Melbourne or Sydney, and if that ship sails to Brisbane often it does not arrive and no-one knows about it; no-one cares about it. People often say that I make alarmist claims about ships and conditions on ships, I happen to be a board member of Missions to Seamen and for every ship that is detained at Port Kembla I get a telephone call, and I try to go on board that ship. Often I am not allowed on that ship, or sometimes when I am on it I am ordered off. Often in this chamber, especially when John Sharp used to be the minister, I have challenged them to come to Port Kembla and visit one of those detained ships with me. They just come into this House and spew out the nonsense that they spew out about shipping and conditions. I have seen people on ships who have lived for almost a week on watermelon. That was the only food they had—watermelon. I have seen all sorts of conditions that you would just not believe. These are the physical conditions that these people are expected to live in. Do you know what this is all in aid of? Cheaper shipping rates; low cost shipping. Low cost shipping means loss of human lives and that is one message that we should constantly remember.Some years ago a committee that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, and I are a member of made a recommendation in the report Ship safe, and one of the recommendations, recommendation 14, said that the Commonwealth should provide `interim financial assistance on an annual basis for approved seafarers, welfare organisations' and `investigate the establishment of an annual funding of a National Seafarers Welfare Network, and report the findings to parliament by June 1999.' The recommendations were not accepted. On the first one, the government said:The Commonwealth does not consider that seafarers' welfare organisations should operate, or receive benefits, in any way differently to other welfare organisations.Then, on the next one, it says:The Commonwealth does not believe it would be appropriate to investigate the establishment and funding of a National Seafarer's Welfare Network.These people often come to this country and are stranded. The Missions to Seamen, especially the one at Port Kembla, does not have a large income. We have to engage in fund raising activities to exist. Some of the firms that are in Port Kembla assist us and every so often we put an appeal in the paper and people will give money. Often at a funeral service, especially from someone associated with the Maritime Union or others, they will say instead of giving flowers or wreaths, make a donation to the Missions to Seamen. That is the way the Missions to Seamen exist. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, we were not asking for the government to provide a lot of money. We were asking them to give financial assistance to some of these organisations that, when necessary, can repatriate the seafarer back to their homeland and buy them food—to give them a decent feed and put food in their belly. Often when they have come off these ships they have been half-starved, beaten and not only physically and mentally abused but sexually abused. What goes on on some of those boats just defies belief. To those people, any members of parliament, who think I exaggerate: come with me the next time a ship is detained in Port Kembla. I will not select the right ship, the one in the worst possible condition. One ship I went on had 109 defects. When I was on television going on about the 109 defects—one of the defects was that none of the toilets had seats—the interviewer, half smart, said to me, `Do you think you're going on a bit, one of the defects being no toilet seats?' I said, `Yes, that was one defect out of 109. But what you are not asking me about are the 108 other defects that were found on that ship.' Many of these ships are in appalling condition and the conditions for the crew have not improved and are not being improved.The states have not agreed to the guidelines, as assured by the department. The opposition, as the shadow minister has said, will seek to amend the bill, maybe in the Senate. We believe that this bill is incomplete. There are outstanding issues to be finalised. The most important relate to occupational health and safety and compensation jurisdictions. I say to the government: finalise these issues as the Ship safe committee report recommended in 1995 and then bring this bill back again. Despite what people might say about the current government, this government has shown no interest in shipping. Its record on shipping has been appalling. I say that notwithstanding that in the past, at the time of Ralph Hunt, people did do quite a lot about shipping. I look opposite and see just one minister there that I respect for what they have done for shipping in Australia and for the welfare of crew members. It has an appalling record. I agree with the MUA that this federal government is politically and morally bankrupt on shipping policy.13:08:0026013Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—On behalf of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, I thank honourable members for their contribution to this debate on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. The safety of shipping is an issue recognised and given priority by all governments of Australia. Our current national safety regime contained in the Navigation Act 1912 and regulations made under the act reflects the division of responsibilities under our federal system. While it is a workable system, it can be improved. The changed jurisdictional responsibilities contained in this bill have been sought by the states and the Northern Territory. The proposed legislation will revise the division of the responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the states and the Northern Territory for the safety regulation of Australian trading ships and foreign flagged vessels. The Commonwealth's jurisdiction will be broadly aligned with international obligations for vessel safety. Vessels which, because of their size or scope of operation, should be under state or Northern Territory maritime safety administration will remain so. The proposed regime, which is supported by the shipping industry, will also ensure that regulation is not an impediment to the business of operating a vessel and will protect Australia's marine environment through the application of appropriate rules. Even though this bill reflects a long and comprehensive process review and has been endorsed by governments of the states and the Northern Territory through both the Australian Transport Council and the Workplace Relations Ministers Council, I note the opposition's intention to refer it to a Senate legislation committee. This bill is a positive example of the federal model working to enhance the safety regulation of shipping in Australia. I commend the bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 26014Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.13:10:0026014Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—In speaking to the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 in detail, I would also at the outset like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services has suggested that this bill is exceptionally important to our navigation industry, both domestically and internationally. If that is the case, I would have thought it appropriate that the minister take the time to come in and participate in the debate and consider the serious issues that the opposition have raised going to the all-important question of cabotage. I say that because I believe—as I think the majority of Australians believe—that the safety of our seafarers, the wellbeing of their families and the need to protect our environment are more important than an announcement about how we as a nation might sell Kingsford Smith airport. 10000Mossfield, Frank (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Do you have an amendment to move?LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will move the amendment. I suppose it comes back to one's priorities. I move opposition amendment No. 1:(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 5 (line 16) to page 6 (line 9), omit the item.10000Mossfield, Frank (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the amendment seconded?N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr Martyn Evans—I second the amendment.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—As I was saying before moving this very important amendment, I believe that the majority of Australians contend that safety for workers and the need to protect our environment are more important than a doorstop to make a cabinet announcement about how an Australian asset might be sold. It all comes back to one's priorities and the fact that, again, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services has been found wanting when it comes to the priorities of his own portfolio and his regard for the importance of transport policy in Australia. It is for that reason that Labor has moved this amendment to remove the government's attempt to change the cabotage provisions of the Navigation Act 1912. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, the cabotage provisions are not only important today; they have historically been important to the navigation industry in Australia. At present, the coverage of the Navigation Act 1912 is determined in section 2 of that act. Essentially, that provides a role for the Commonwealth based on the voyage to be undertaken by a vessel; that is, the Commonwealth act covers interstate and foreign voyages. The objective of part 6 cabotage provisions in the Navigation Act was to develop and nourish the Australian merchant marine. They were designed to protect the wages and living standards of Australian seafarers from unfair competition provided by foreign vessels that pay poor wages. Some examples of that were clearly detailed in a range of contributions from the opposition today, including the last contribution by the member for Throsby, who has historically taken a lot of interest in the importance, the needs and the aspirations of Australian workers. That is because he and others have a very strong view that all Australian workers, and, for that matter, workers coming to Australia from other countries, should not work in inhumane conditions. The cabotage provisions were designed to make sure that any operators competing on the Australian coast—on our domestic transport task—do so with appropriate wages and conditions of employment; that is, wages and conditions that are acceptable to the Australian community in the same way as other Australian transport industries are required to meet standards acceptable by our community. The problem is that since the Howard government was elected in 1996, the government has been deadset focused on undermining these provisions. The main task has been through the use of single and multiple use permits in an open slather approach. The effect of this strategy is to open Australia's coastal trade and marine environment to foreign shipping not requiring standards for conditions and wages on board that apply to Australian ships. These cabotage provisions have never applied to coastal traders voyaging within one state or the Northern Territory because of section 2 of the Navigation Act not applying to intrastate trade. (Extension of time granted) Through the bill before the House, the amendments to section 2 have meant that the act will now apply to intrastate trade where those ships are larger than 500 tonnes. What the government has done is to ensure that one part of the Navigation Act keeps the old jurisdiction—that is the section dealing with cabotage and acceptable conditions for transport workers on domestic maritime trade. The opposition has a fundamental problem with that. It has been the case that cabotage provisions have not applied because they are in the Navigation Act, a Commonwealth act that did not apply to any part of that maritime trade. We will therefore not support the government's proposal, because it is about a clear intention to construct a situation where these provisions no longer apply in that circumstance. That is what item 10 of the bill is seeking to do, and that is why our amendment is intended to remove that section. If our amendment is successful, the cabotage provisions will remain consistent with the rest of the act. If our amendment is successful, then we will have a basis of sensible, fair and equitable conditions under which workers can operate on our coastline. If our amendment is successful, we will have a better chance of protecting our Australian shipping industry from unfair competition. I say unfair competition, because competition is based on exploitation and on risk to our environment and to the wellbeing of our seafaring community. If the government rejects the amendment, we are saying that that will signal a clear intention to let foreign vessels pay what they like to workers on our coast—an un-Australian approach, when you consider the importance of the maritime industry historically to Australia. It will mean that the clear intention of this House is that we will let foreign flag vessels apply whatever conditions they like to seafarers on our coast. Our community will clearly suffer under such a proposition. I commend the amendment to the House. I say that because I think that enshrining the current application in the revised part 6 of the act is also about making it a clear intention of the parliament that coastal trading provisions not apply to the operation of foreign flag ships on intrastate voyages. That is an illogical position. Leaving part 6 as it is, and therefore subject to the new section 2, gives a consistent application of that part to all coastal trade. The minister has obviously focused on his view of Australian shipping as a user and not a shipping nation. His benchmark is obviously freight rates. He is blind to any measure of efficiency, including the safety and security of our seafarers and our Australian shipping industry. I expect that he, and the government, will oppose this amendment because he wants to oppose any action or decision that would ensure that all ships on our coast are operating on the same regimes. What he is in essence saying, if he opposes this amendment, is that the change will only attend to the safety regulation as opposed to economic regulation of our shipping. I actually suggest the government should be about a broader view of life. We do not accept that narrow approach to life because, in our view, these are one and the same when you are looking at shipping because a healthy and safe shipping industry is not just about economic issues, it is also about the safety and security of the work force in association with the need to protect our environment. The truth is that the government and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services do not want to see this loophole closed. They want to continue to allow foreign flag vessels to undo Australian ships by undercutting safety and paying Third World standard salaries. That has been the consistent approach of the Howard government when it comes to our maritime shipping industry since its election in 1996. I do not accept that we as a nation should tolerate that approach. Nor should any decent country tolerate that approach. Nor should we tolerate that approach not only in our domestic shipping industry but in any other aspect of the Australian way of life when it comes to the employment of Australian workers. In dealing with this issue, I would also like to refer to the fact that, by way of the back door, the current government over the past five years has been about achieving its desired outcome of undermining Australian workers. (Extension of time granted) I make no apologies, even though I might irritate the government, for raising these arguments, because they are fairly fundamental to the nature and operation of this bill and the intent of the government and they need to be exposed in the debate before the House this afternoon. That is why I refer to the fact—and I know the government does not like the facts being placed on the table—that in 1995-96 there were 421 single voyage permits issued and zero continuous voyage permits. What do we have today? This rose to a peak of 704 single voyage permits and 41 continuous voyage permits in 1998-99. I suggest to the House and the Australian community that the government has continued to use those permits not for their original purpose but to undermine the arrangements and the intent of this parliament that ships under the Navigation Act, operating on the coast, are subject to Australian standards. As a consequence, unlicensed vessels are increasing their share of coastal trading. I regard that not only as an issue about wages and conditions and health and safety in the environment but also as a question of our national defence. The Australian shipping industry has historically been very important to our defence forces and our recent experience in East Timor put that beyond any doubt. I also remind the House that, as a result of our involvement in East Timor, General Cosgrove congratulated maritime workers, their families and our domestic shipping industry for the major contribution they made not only in supporting our armed forces in East Timor but as part of a very important United Nations contribution in trying to work out the difficulties of East Timor. It is for that reason I believe the inevitable consequence of the policy being pursued by the Howard government is that licensed Australian vessel operators will have no option: they will reflag their vessels offshore and return to the coastal trade under single voyage and continuous voyage arrangements. The minister is totally deregulating the coastal trade and this will kill Australian shipping and the merchant marine industry. I clearly expect, because of the ideological bent of the government, it will oppose the amendment and therefore confirm this strategy. The government is clearly prepared to have the Navigation Act 1912 contain separate jurisdictions to ensure it does not give an inch from its path of the destruction of the Australian shipping industry. The effect of our amendment is clearly to establish a proper base, and the base from which this act can go forward, with one clear jurisdiction. It also has the effect of having cabotage provisions consistent with our whole coastal trade. In essence, the amendment is about stopping an attempt by the Howard government to insert a jurisdictional arrangement for the cabotage provisions that is different from the rest of the act.I ask the House to support the opposition's amendment. It is moved in good faith. The amendment seeks to detail the proper consideration of this bill—many parts of which, on balance, we support—and, in doing so, establish in the mind of the parliament that the Australian community does have concerns about one part of this bill, that going to the issue of cabotage. Those concerns are of national importance. They are in the national interest. They go to our commitment as a nation to employ Australian workers first and foremost, to employ them in a safe environment, and to employ them on the basis of fair and reasonable wages and decent conditions of employment. More importantly they also suggest that in promoting coastal shipping in Australia we have regard to our environment, which is all important, and, secondly, that we continue to maintain a proper merchant shipping service for the purpose of being able to contribute to our national defence forces as required. I commend the amendment to the House. 13:25:0026017Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—This legislation should be non-contentious. It should be willingly supported by all parties. It is in the best interests of shipping safety in Australia and all responsible authorities do agree on it. It is therefore disgraceful that we have had to listen to speaker after speaker from the opposition opposing the bill in its current form and attempting to subvert its safety focus by proposing an amendment to extend cabotage in intrastate voyages. The opposition's amendment is simply aimed at extending the industrial power of the MUA. Safety takes a back seat. The states and the Northern Territory take a back seat. The industry takes a back seat. Everything takes a back seat to the union. What they propose would represent a significant change in the operation of the coastal trading regulations—regulations that have been administered by successive governments for 80 years. Indeed former guidelines for issuing coastal trading licences and permits under the acts which were promulgated in 1988 by the Hon. Ralph Willis when he was Minister for Shipping clearly stated that the act did not apply to intrastate voyages. The amendment that the opposition is proposing today flows in the face of reason. There is no suggestion that it would be acceptable to the state and Northern Territory governments. It is certainly unacceptable to the government and for this reason the government rejects the opposition's proposed amendment.Question put:That the motion (Mr Martin Ferguson's) be agreed to.13:31:00The House divided.(Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr F.W. Mossfield) 58Adams, D.G.H.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.73Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.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.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.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.Beazley, K.C.Howard, J.W.Gerick, J.F.Downer, A.J.G.Plibersek, T.Fahey, J.J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bill agreed to.26018Bill (on motion by Mrs Gallus)—by leave—read a third time.Bills26018R113526018Debate resumed from 17 August 2000, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.13:40:0026018McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I foreshadow that I will move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House (1) condemns the Government for introducing a bill which is:(a) discriminatory and socially divisive;(b) a completely inadequate response to the complex ethical, social and economic issues involved in the development and use of assisted reproductive technologies; and(c) totally ignores other areas involving the care and upbringing of children where similar issues and principles are raised; and(2) calls on the Government to implement the strong and unanimous recommendations of the Australian Health Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council to establish a national framework to regulate the provision and development of assisted reproductive technology (ART) services which should include:(a) mechanisms to evaluate, assess and prioritise the provision of ART services, including providing necessary criteria to protect, as a primary consideration, the interests of children who may be born from the use of ART as well as the interests of donors and those persons seeking to use ART;(b) measures to ensure that any child born as a result of the use of ART is able to identify and locate his or her biological parents;(c) adequate facilities and resources for medical practitioners to obtain expert advice and guidance on the complex ethical, social and economic issues involved in the use of ART; and(d) procedures to monitor and review the use of ART to ensure that the benefits of ART to participants are balanced with the interests of society as a whole".There has been nothing akin to a rational objective analysis by this government of the complex, social, moral, ethical and, indeed, economic issues involved in the use of assisted reproductive technology. All we are seeing, as the title of this bill indicates, is a winding back of rights that Australian citizens have had since 1984; a winding back of the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act that all Australian women, in particular, in this context, have enjoyed since 1984. It is the first time in the 26 years that that and other human rights legislation has been in place that a government of the Australian people has sought to wind back rights of its citizens. It is a ham-fisted approach without any rational analysis of the acknowledged complex and, indeed, intensely held views by many sectors of the community. We will hear during this debate those views, sincerely held by members on both sides and from all parties, on the use of assisted reproductive technology. The point is that, when you have acutely and intensely held views—moral, religious and social views—you do not address those by winding back rights. As soon as you start doing that, you get into very dangerous ground indeed. But the government does not care about that. It is all about scapegoating for its base political motives. We have to ask ourselves why we are here debating this bill. Fundamentally, we are here debating this bill because the government failed to appear in the case of McBain heard by Justice Sundberg of the Federal Court of Australia during the first part of last year. Despite being served with a notice of constitutional issue arising, the Attorney-General neglected in his duty to attend and put an argument on behalf of the Commonwealth as to how the Sex Discrimination Act should be interpreted and, in particular, to assist the court with very complex arguments regarding the interaction of the provisions in that act—that act itself being based on international treaties—with, in particular, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and balancing that against provisions in other treaties including, for instance, the Convention on the Rights of the Child. They are very complex arguments involving detailed and expert knowledge that only the Commonwealth would have. Where were they? They were not there. Justice Sundberg, wanting at least some argument contrary to the application being put to him by Dr McBain in that case, allowed the Australian Catholic bishops to appear and present their argument. In fairness to the genuineness of their submissions, there is no way they could possibly have had that institutional knowledge regarding the development of this legislation which only the Commonwealth could have had.We are here because of the neglect of the Australian government, the coalition government, specifically the Attorney-General, to appear in that case. How sincere can the government be now to introduce this legislation to address the specific circumstances that arose in the McBain case when they themselves did not appear in that case? To state that fact in itself demonstrates the hypocrisy. Moreover, the context in which this issue was thrown up was around about the time in the middle of last year that the decision was handed down. The ALP had its national conference on. The Prime Minister is alive to issues. In any political party, these issues on moral, ethical, social and economic questions are going to be intensely held. He, being a politician of long standing, said, `I will lob a bomb in there. I will propose winding back sex discrimination protection to exclude single women from assisted reproductive technology.' The code of the Prime Minister was to exclude lesbians from assisted reproductive technology. There is a wide range of circumstances where women may seek to access reproductive technology. There could be instances, as have occurred in Australia and Great Britain, where a woman was partially through the course of assisted reproductive technology and her husband was killed in a motor vehicle accident. There is no consideration of those sorts of circumstances by this government. It has applied a ham-fisted approach of winding back protections without looking at the circumstances applicable to the individual patient seeking the services. It is totally unsatisfactory and completely irrational. In seeking to cause divisions within the Australian Labor Party, we can cop that. We are big enough, tough enough and professional enough to cop that. But what we cannot forgive is this government seeking to cause not only social divisions but—and it offends me to say it—religious divisions within the community. That is personally offensive to me and is certainly offensive to my colleagues in the Australian Labor Party. We saw this response at the time of the National Conference of the ALP conveniently as a bomb throwing exercise, despite the fact that this issue had arisen on at least four earlier occasions in cases before state courts. If the government had wanted rationally to do something about it, it had plenty of time. Certainly since 1996 there has been a unanimous recommendation of the Medical Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council that there is a need for a national framework to address these complex ethical, moral and social issues. But the government was all about grandstanding. It was all about politicking. You hear that from this Prime Minister. You hear constantly that he is determined to win the next election. What you do not hear is that he is determined to lead this country. A leader must unify the Australian people. If you cannot unify the Australian people on all issues, you work out mechanisms so that intensely held views on complex medical and ethical issues can be resolved. You do not cause divisions in the community for your political interest. There is no doubt that this is the motive of this government. Quite frankly, the Australian people are disgusted and that is reflected in the opinion polls. They will see through this. We have seen the panic and the urgency—and they had to continue the drama after the ALP conference. I think it was the first week back that, in the very first day or the second day of sitting, the government introduced its bill to wind back these protections that all women have from being discriminated against in the provision of services as a result of their marital status. In winding back the sex discrimination legislation from that area, they wound back protections for not only married women but also women in de facto relationships, for instance—that being a category of the absence of a marital relationship. So there was this panic and this urgency to effectively create an exemption from an exemption. The convoluted wording that the government will be moving later on is something I will be having something to say about. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner at the time, Susan Halliday, boldly said not only that she was quite disgusted by the approach that this government had taken but also that it was the first time that legislation had impacted in such a dramatic way on discrimination against women—and she was not consulted at all. The lack of consultation showed in what occurred.We acknowledge within our political party that there is a diverse range of views on these complex moral, ethical and social issues, as there will be through the community. But I ask Australian citizens who have those views—and most will have intense views about this matter—what does this legislation do to address those complex moral, social and ethical issues? It does nothing at all. Secondly, what does this legislation do to provide for the interests of children who are born from the use of assisted reproductive technology? It does nothing. Even the Senate committee report—the minority report of government members—acknowledged that the best you could hope for as it applied in those states of Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia would be ensuring that at the time of conception, possibly at the time of birth, the woman using the treatment was in a married or a de facto relationship. The logic of this government saying they are concerned with the interests of the child just is not there. In the absence of that logic, it is quite disgraceful to attempt to wind back human rights. They are the first two questions I ask people who have intensely held views to consider. What will the legislation do to determine and resolve those complex issues—to set up guidelines or a framework to address those complex issues? Nothing. The second question I ask is that, if you are living in the state of Victoria and you have a particularly strong view—as many Victorians do; and indeed as do many Australians in the states and territories around Australia—opposing the assisted reproductive services being given to single women, what will this legislation do to prevent single women in other states using these services? In the states of New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania, what will it do? It will do nothing. So I put it to you in advancing that argument that, if you have strongly held views about trying to regulate the circumstances or establishing guidelines relating to when women should be able to use these services and, in particular, whether or not single women should be able to use the services and the circumstances in which they should be able to use them, how strongly and genuinely can those views be implemented if you are saying, `We live in Victoria. We don't care what goes on in New South Wales, Queensland or Tasmania'? If you are genuine and sincere, and I accept that people are, you need a national framework. More than just about any area of medical practice, this is an area crying out for a national code or framework to regulate—or, firstly, to identify—those values that society has for identifying the social and economic capabilities of a family unit, however made up; to identify when it is appropriate for these services to be provided to women.I note that today the Attorney-General issued a press release condemning my use of that phrase. In so condemning me, what he has not referred to is my reference to the example of what takes place in Great Britain, for instance. What is contained in the United Kingdom Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act are a series of guidelines which are set up in a code of practice. Essentially that code—and I will not go through it in detail at the present time—says, yes, you have to identify in assessing clients who access this treatment; and you have to rationally assess the needs of the people who are seeking the treatment, the needs of the children who will be born from the treatment and indeed the right, prima facie, of that child to be brought up in a family where there are two parents. But the act specifically says that it does not exclude any category of woman from being considered for treatment. People seeking treatment are entitled to a fair and unprejudiced assessment of their situation. They look at the ability of the people applying for the treatment to provide a stable and supportive environment for the child. They look at the ability of that unit to satisfy the ability to look after and provide for that child's needs and to prevent that child being exposed to the risk of harm. Where a child has no legal father, they say, `Let's look at whether there is another supportive network around the mother to provide for assistance in addressing the needs of that family unit and specifically the needs of the child.' These are rational criteria to assess. Whether or not they are necessarily the appropriate ones for Australia is a matter for appropriate debate—appropriate debate and consultation among the public medical experts, of course, and among the states, but these are rational things to consider. Certainly they have to be a starting point for rational well-intentioned people to sit down and look at; to think through how we determine society's views of when it is appropriate to provide these services to women whatever their marital status is. We are not seeing that at all. What we are seeing from this government is a continuation of scapegoating and we are going to see a lot of that between now and the election. We are going to see this government not leading the country. As I indicated earlier, this Prime Minister is not saying he wants to lead the country, what he is saying is that he wants to win the next election. What we are going to see is a lot of scapegoating. We are going to see constant references to bogeymen, and we will hear them repeatedly. We are going to hear Aboriginals, refugees and homosexuals. That is going to become the rhetoric of this government.With the assistance of a colleague of mine, I looked at some of these bogeymen in terms of our literary history. We looked firstly to the Wizard of Oz, when Dorothy is discussing with the Scarecrow and the Tinman what evil characters could be out there in the woods. The Tinman says, `There's mostly lions and tigers and bears,' and they all say—all join in—`Lions and tigers and bears. Oh my.' This is what the government is going to be doing. This government is, between now and the election, going to be looking for bogeymen and scapegoats. It is constantly going to be pressing these buttons of division rather than bringing Australians together to resolve these complex medical, social and economic issues.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Barton will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. Miscellaneous2602214:00:0026022SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—As honourable members may be aware, today is the 100th anniversary of the first elections to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. On this day 100 years ago voters in Western Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales and Victoria went to the polls, followed on Saturday, 30 March 1901 by voters in Queensland and South Australia. As we prepare to mark the centenary of the first sittings of this House by returning to Melbourne on 9 and 10 May 2001, I am sure members will join me in commemorating this day 100 years ago when Australians first came together and acted jointly to give effect to the parliamentary dimension of the Commonwealth's brand new Constitution.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice260222602214:01:0026022Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Deputy Prime Minister, when you were asked about the Postal Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 on Monday by my shadow minister, didn't you know that the government was going to withdraw the bill? Were you deliberately left out of the loop or was this latest decision to backflip only made since that time? Given that the government has now withdrawn the bill, will you guarantee that you will not persist with any proposal to further deregulate Australia Post services for the duration of this parliament and, if re-elected, for the next?26022Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. His spokesman on telecommunications has been trying to beat this issue up. He was in here quivering with mock rage in a most extraordinary way this morning. But the fact is that he is not the slightest bit concerned about the probity of the government's actions regarding the Postal Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2000; he is not worried about the answers I gave on previous occasions on this matter; least of all is he worried about the adequacy of postal services in rural and regional Australia. The only reason he is upset is that the removal of this bill from consideration has exposed his ongoing deceit. This false claim that he gives a damn about services in rural and regional Australia has been exposed, as have the misrepresentations and distortions that he puts to the Australian media on this.I said on Monday, and I repeat now, that it is absurd to describe the actions that the government was taking as either deregulation or privatisation of Australia Post. That was perfectly accurate on Monday, and it is accurate now. The shadow spokesman in particular, picked up now by the Leader of the Opposition, is upset because he can no longer dissemble on this issue—that is what this is about. He is upset because he fears that he might have to stand on the Labor Party's record on post offices: 277 closed in contrast to the 105 that have opened since we have been in government. His problem is that country people have long memories. They remember where those post offices once were, and they are able to see where we have reopened them.2602214:04:0026022St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House how the government's announcement on Sydney airport this week will benefit regional New South Wales. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative policies in this area?26022Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge his very real interest—particularly in representing Tamworth, one of the busiest regional airports in Australia—in the future of Sydney airport in general and access to it more particularly. I can advise the House that the government has determined to sell Sydney airport through a 100 per cent trade sale to be completed in the second half of this year. We will be imposing stringent limits on foreign ownership, including ownership by foreign airlines. Sydney airport will always be majority Australian owned. The government has also decided that the other Sydney basin airports, including Bankstown, will be sold through a 100 per cent trade sale in the second half of next year, 2002. We will retain the existing operating arrangements at Sydney airport to protect regional New South Wales and the residents of inner Sydney as well. The government will not allow the private sector operator of Sydney airport to increase landing charges unfairly as a way of forcing regional airlines to Bankstown Airport. We recognise that Sydney airport is an essential transport hub for regional New South Wales. In fact, over 40 per cent of regional passengers arriving at Sydney airport connect with flights to other destinations. It is not feasible for those people to land at Bankstown Airport and then crawl slowly through the traffic to meet their connecting flights. So regional New South Wales will always need direct access to Sydney airport, even though Bankstown will become an attractive alternative for some airline services over time.The government will be issuing a directive to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to give effect to our policy on regional pricing. The airport will not be able to increase the charges on regional airlines by more than the inflation rate, even in peak periods. The decision builds on the discussion paper that I released earlier this week, which details amendments to the slot scheme which will protect regional access to Sydney airport and make that scheme work more effectively. Our decision will also protect Sydney residents. I stress that the curfew and the 80 movements per hour cap will remain in place and I will be recommending that the private sector lessee of Bankstown Airport should be required to do a full environmental impact statement into the upgrading of the airport.The honourable member asked me if there were any alternative policies. The opposition's platform says that they will build a second airport in the Sydney basin. There is no word of where it will be, where the flight paths will be or how it will be funded. The residents of Sydney have a clear right to certainty. The government has a clear, sensible and appropriate plan for addressing Sydney's airport needs, and it is time for the policy-lazy opposition to produce the details of its plans for Sydney.Distinguished Visitors2602310000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Kim Min-Seok, a member of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea and here as a guest of the Australian parliament. On behalf of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice260232602314:08:0026023Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and it concerns his interview on Melbourne radio on Public Education Day. Minister, do you recall being asked whether funding for Haileybury College, a wealthy category 1 school in Melbourne, was going up by 273 per cent? Minister, do you recall your answer, which was:You didn't inform me before the program that you were going to quote that figure. I was not given that figure at all. I've been on a plane for the last hour. Well, I've been on a plane. I've just got off the plane, John.Minister, now that you have been off the plane for some time since your interview, can you now confirm that your legislation gave funding increases of more than 200 per cent to more than 15 category 1 schools in Victoria and New South Wales, including Haileybury College, Geelong Grammar, Ivanhoe Grammar and Trinity Grammar?26024Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I can confirm that the government has introduced a very fair and just funding policy for non-government schools which corrects some of the gross inequities that prevailed under the Labor Party for 13 years. The government is providing, of course, increased funding for the neediest schools in the non-government sector and has introduced, through its socioeconomic status index, appropriate funding according to the income levels of school communities. As a result of that, there are schools which benefit significantly from this system, because they were grossly underfunded by the Labor Party. As a result of the states grants legislation, which was passed by the parliament in December, and the funding that is provided through that legislation in the states, government school students in 2004 will be receiving some $8,000 per student. Students at Haileybury College will be receiving some 41 per cent of that amount; in other words, students in the secondary school at Haileybury College will be receiving some $3,367 per head compared with over $8,000 in total from Commonwealth and state governments for students at government schools. Opposition members interjecting—BT4Dr KEMP—I take it that the Labor Party thinks that this is grossly unfair.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Yes. Yes, we do.BT4Dr KEMP—Yes, the Leader of the Opposition believes that it is grossly unfair that the parents of students at Haileybury College should be receiving $3,367 per student when if they had chosen to send their child to a government school they would be receiving over $8,000 per student. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition believes it is so unfair that students in category 1 should receive any increase that he proposes to take away all these increases from students in category 1. This is a totally unethical and immoral policy. Let me illustrate why: the Labor Party has accepted the fact that categories 2 to 12 were utterly flawed—because they have accepted in the legislation the SES funding formula for schools that were in those categories—yet it somehow expects us to believe that category 1 was not flawed.When we actually look at the schools in that category, we find that the Leader of the Opposition, as a consequence of his policy, will be ripping $3,007 per student away from the Bethel Learning Centre in the electorate Werriwa—a small school with fees of about $200 that operates out of a local hall. The Leader of the Opposition is going to take $3,000 per student away from that school, because it is a category 1 school that he sees as a wealthy school. He is also going to take $3,370 away from students at The School of Total Education in Warwick on the Darling Downs because that community school—as far as he is concerned—is a wealthy school. But listen to the justice in this: he is going to take $178 per head away from Shore on the North Shore of Sydney. So, the richer the school, the smaller the loss; the poorer the school, the larger the loss. The poorer schools are going to be punished by the Leader of the Opposition because they were unfortunate enough to fall into his totally corrupt and misleading category 1.2602414:15:0026024Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. What is the present status of Commonwealth-state financial relations under the new tax system? How are the states and territories benefiting from these arrangements?26024Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I can inform the House that on 1 July last year Commonwealth-state financial relations were reformed in a way which had never been done in 100 years of Australian federal history. Prior to that, once a year the premiers had come to Canberra and the night before, generally speaking, an offer of grants had been shuffled under their hotel room doors for discussion as to how much the Commonwealth would be funding them for essential services. Tomorrow the state treasurers will come to Canberra for the second intergovernmental meeting of the Commonwealth-state financial council, and we will not be negotiating grants which have been pulled out of a hat and shuffled under doors of hotels. Tomorrow we will be dividing up the revenue from the goods and services tax to be sent to governments to fund essential services in the six states and two territories of Australia. To give you some idea of this, Mr Speaker, in the forthcoming year the state of Victoria will be funded $5.5 billion out of the goods and services tax. It spends $4.6 billion on education. The goods and services tax paid to Victoria will fund the equivalent of every salary of every schoolteacher in every class in every school in Victoria. The goods and services tax will give Queensland a net sum of $5 billion. Queensland spends $3.5 billion on its education. The honourable member for Fadden, I know, is very interested in the way in which the education system works in Queensland. It spends $1.8 billion on police and justice. Do you know that the goods and services tax funds the equivalent of every teacher in Queensland and every policeman on the beat in Queensland?There will be no argument at the Commonwealth-state meeting tomorrow about the amount which will be given in total to the states. That is because the states, for the first time in federal history, now have a growth revenue—the goods and services tax. There will be an argument tomorrow as to how the goods and services tax is divided up between the states. Far from the Labor states repudiating goods and services tax, tomorrow we are going to have a big stoush as to who gets more of the goods and services tax. This has even prompted the state of New South Wales to take out full-page advertisements in the newspapers today featuring cane toads. The advertisements are entitled: `Guess which state gobbles up $190m of NSW taxes each year?' The allegation is that Queensland is getting too much GST and the Labor government of New South Wales would like some more. This prompted Mr Beattie, who wants more share of GST for his state, to describe Mr Carr as `childish and immature'. He said:The cockroaches have got a fight on their hands. We won't be stood over. This is the Centenary of Federation and they are trying to destroy the Federation.How do you destroy the Federation now? By taking GST revenue off Queensland. That is the argument from Premier Beattie: if you take GST revenue off Queensland, you are destroying the Federation. I table the cane toad advertisement that New South Wales is running.There is only one political risk to the new arrangement in relation to Commonwealth-state financial relations, and that is a federal Labor government. The states today are fighting for their share of GST. Far from being opposed to it, they are now scrambling over each other to get a bigger share of GST. The only threat to this would be a federal Labor government. Listen to what Mr Pat McKendry of the Retailers Association of Queensland said on Brisbane radio on Tuesday:I think the real point about this, Andrew, is that the promise of roll-back and the implications that has for the Commonwealth revenue as a direct result—state revenue—I think the southern states are getting increasingly nervous. The less money the federal government takes from the GST—and let's understand that if there is a Beazley government come December then there will be less money collected—there's going to be less money for the states.There will be less money for teachers, less money for police, less money for health and less money for hospitals. The only way that the Leader of the Opposition can roll back GST and guarantee health, education and police services is by increasing income taxes. The Leader of the Opposition will not spell out which items of goods and services he will take GST off because he does not want to spell out how much income taxes would go up under a Beazley government. This is the greatest reform to federal-state financial relations in the last 100 years. It was opposed all the way by the Australian Labor Party, and the only thing that threatens it today would be the election of a Labor government.2602514:21:0026026Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and it again concerns his radio interview on Public Education Day. Minister, did you tell the listeners to 774 ABC: The effect of these funding changes to some of these schools is to significantly put a downward pressure on the fees of those schools so that well-resourced schools are now available to low income families.Minister, are you aware of recent media articles showing that the five-figure fees of several category 1 New South Wales and Victorian schools rose by more than 10 per cent this year despite your new system doubling or tripling their funding? Minister, how many of the former category 1 schools have reduced their fees this year? If you do not know, will you return to the House with the answer?26026Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I sympathise with the member for having had that question palmed off onto him by the tactics committee, because, if he had been aware of even the fundamental facts of the new funding policy, he would have realised that the schools that receive additional funding under our policy only receive the full funding increment by the year 2004. That means that they are receiving a quarter of that increment this year. Not only that; these schools at the moment are having their fees pushed up as a result of settlements which are being made with the teacher unions and as a result of the squeeze which they were under for the 13 years of the Labor Party and the Labor funding system, which will continue through until December this year. I can tell you that there have been quite a number of schools which have already indicated that they will be reducing their fees.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—Name them.BT4Dr KEMP—Wesley College in Melbourne has indicated that it is going to reduce its fees by $400 per student. That will be a great benefit—PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory and the Leader of the Opposition! The question has been asked of the minister. The minister is answering the question. Interjections will not be tolerated.BT4Dr KEMP—That will be a great benefit to the member of the frontbench opposite who takes advantage of the educational services of Wesley College for his children. I will not name the member, but he knows who he is. Geelong Grammar was mentioned. This is a school that services many families from regional and rural Australia where there have been big income falls. That school has indicated that it intends to provide all the increased money as scholarships for low income and needy students. In other words, that school is doing precisely what the member suggests no school is doing: it is throwing its doors wide open to students who would not otherwise receive any benefit. WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—You want to go and have a look at the public schools there!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Corio!WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Corio is defying the chair!BT4Dr KEMP—This gets close to the heart of this union party over there; it gets very close to their hearts. The Labor Party, of course, a very powerful sector—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPWU5O'Connor, Gavan, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The Minister for Forestry and Conservation and the member for Corio!3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—That is two schools—what about the rest?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—And the member for Port Adelaide!BT4Dr KEMP—The consequence, of course, of the Leader of the Opposition's policy to abolish any of these funding increases to schools which have the misfortune to fall into his corrupt category 1 is that the students who would otherwise receive those scholarships from Geelong Grammar will no longer receive them. Quite a number of low income families, probably families from rural Victoria— ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane is warned!BT4Dr KEMP—who might have had access to a well-resourced school, built up by parents over many years, will now, under the Leader of the Opposition's policy, have no access. The leaders of the Labor Party themselves have no hesitation in using their income levels to send their children to non-government schools that are well resourced. That is what Paul Keating did. That is what Bob Hawke did. That is what the member for Hotham does. That is what the Leader of the Opposition does. Indeed, almost 50 per cent of the members on the Labor Party side of the House send their children to these non-government schools, yet the Leader of the Opposition is going to implement a policy which is going to slash thousands of dollars from low fee community schools and prevent low income families from regional Australia benefiting from the government's funding policies.2602714:28:0026027Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister update the House on how the federal government is working with the medical profession to ensure that doctors continue to receive adequate remuneration for their services?26027Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The dealings of any health minister with the medical profession can be fraught with danger, but perhaps one of the areas of some success over the last 18 months has been the memorandum of understanding process that has been run with peak general practice organisations, particularly the divisions of general practice, the rural doctors of Australia and the college of GPs. The MOU aims to enhance the stability and viability of general practice, and it has had some very significant achievements. We were able to increase rebates when the MOU was signed. We have been able to reverse Labor's decision to index rebates at half CPI for a prolonged period of time, and indeed indexation in the last two financial years, 2000 and 2001, is higher than it would have been because of the MOU. We have not sought to claw back embedded WST. In fact, GP rebates in the last 18 months have gone up 6.8 per cent—without the MOU, they would have gone up only 1.4 per cent—and this has led to $400 million extra going into general practice over the life of the MOU. We have also been able to address some long-standing irritations that GPs have had. Today, if someone sees a GP and needs a vaccine, that vaccine can be purchased directly from the GP as part of a bulk-billed consultation rather than requiring two consultations and a chemist visit, and the member of the public still having to pay a co-payment when visiting the chemist. There are faster payment times on manually lodged claims. GPs can connect their businesses directly to the Health Insurance Commission and we are just about to allow pay doctor cheques that are unpresented after 90 days to be transferred directly to doctors via electronic funds transfer. We have had a significant rural component—$12 million went to the rural retention payment system, $5 million for accommodation for GP registrars and increased rebates from 1 January this year to non-vocationally recognised general practitioners in rural areas. We have 18 months to go. We believe there is much more we can do with this. We are working cooperatively with general practitioners, and I believe there is still more to come from what has been a very successful initiative.2602714:30:0026027Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is again to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I refer the minister to his claim that his massive funding increases to elite private schools will make them more affordable for low income families. Minister, having praised Wesley College for promising to lower its fees by $400 at some time in the future, is it not a fact that this year's fees at Wesley have increased by 19.1 per cent, or $2,170 per student? Minister, how can you seriously claim that this school is now more affordable for low income families? 26028Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The Wesley College to which the member refers is a school whose parents will receive in 2004 from us a subsidy of $2,346 per student. That will compare with over $8,000 per student which those parents would receive if they sent their child to a government school. The parents have to make up the rest of the money that is required to resource that school. They do so, saving the taxpayer a great deal of money. Many of the students have both parents working to send their children to that school. This is a school which has been disadvantaged for many years by the Labor Party's iniquitous funding policy. It is a school whose parents receive some 28.7 per cent of the funding that they would get if they sent their child to a government school. The Labor Party think that is very unfair—that we should give as much as 28.7 per cent to parents who send their child to a non-government school—but they think it is entirely fair that, if you go to a government school, you get 100 per cent. These parents at Wesley are, of course, paying their full taxes as well. This is a school whose costs have been pushed up year after year by the Labor Party's funding system, which we have just abolished.Let me just make the broader point to set this in context: the government is providing increased funding to all schools, both government and non-government, under its states grants legislation. Government schools receive $1.6 billion more under the legislation passed in December than they received over the last four years. Government schools, public schools, in Australia have seen their funding levels rise by 37 per cent over the last four years—well over $500 million more is being provided to public schools in this country each year by the Howard government than was provided by the Labor Party when in office. We are talking here about a context of school funding which provides the biggest investment in the education of young Australians that any federal government has ever made. As I have indicated, schools like Wesley College and numbers of other schools have also indicated that, when they receive the funding entitlement that they will under this policy, they will be reducing their fees, and that will be welcomed by many students and many families. Our policy will continue to put a downward pressure on school fees.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—I seek leave to table an article from the Age dated 18 November that indicates that Wesley's fees are increasing to $13,500.Leave not granted. 2602814:35:0026028Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is also addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister advise the House of the impact of the abolition of the former government's new schools policy? Is he aware of any alternative policies and what is his response to these alternatives?26028Kemp, 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 Macquarie for his question. We have already seen that the Labor Party, if ever elected, intends to pursue the iniquitous policy of taking thousands of dollars away from low fee community schools.Opposition members interjecting—BT4Dr KEMP—It is not denied by the Leader of the Opposition. That is a consequence of the Labor Party's policy from the Leader of the Opposition. But this does not end the iniquity of the education policies for which the Labor Party is well known. When this government came to office we found that the greatest obstacle to low income families making a choice about the school they felt best suited their children was the Labor Party's new schools policy. This was a policy that was negotiated between the Labor Party and the Australian Education Union in 1985. Its aim was to prevent new schools that served low income communities from opening up. The Labor Party connived with the iniquitous policy of the Australian Education Union to stop low income families having a choice of school. We abolished that policy, and that was hailed by low income communities around Australia as finally offering them the opportunity to choose the school for their child. As a result of this policy, between 1997 and 2000, some 221 new schools were approved for Commonwealth funding. One of the interesting features of these schools that were approved is that 46 of them existed before 1996 but were not funded by the Labor Party, in whole or in part, even though registered by the state governments, because of the new schools policy. In other words, under Labor you can send your child to a school of your choice and get no money at all, no support. That is what the policy of the Australian Education Union is all about, because it believes in no funding for non-government schools. The kinds of compromises the Labor Party reached—and the weak Leader of the Opposition, when he was education minister, was very happy to reach—with the Australian Education Union were a policy that denied any funding to many students in non-government schools and denied any support to their parents even though those parents were paying their full share of taxation. Our policy has restored justice in this area. As Peter Crimmins, the Executive Director of the Australian Association of Christian Schools, said:Choice in schooling is now a reality for working-class Australian families. The Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition tell you that these are all unnecessary schools, that we do not need these schools. Tell that to the parents of the Manning River Steiner School in Taree. Tell that to the parents of the Norman Park Christian School in Rockhampton. Tell that to the parents of the low fee Anglican schools in Western Sydney, like the Penrith Anglican College in Orchard Hills and the Thomas Hassall Anglican College in Hoxton Park. Tell that to the parents at the Islamic schools like the Al-Faisal College in Auburn. Our policy has made it possible for families who never before could contemplate school choice to choose their school. And—make no mistake—when the Labor Party gets back into power, the Leader of the Opposition will not only take great pleasure in slashing $3,000 from the Bethel Education Centre out in Western Sydney; not only take great pleasure in taking away $3,000 per student from the Warwick School of Total Education in the Darling Downs; he will also be reintroducing the new schools policy. He will be reintroducing the new schools policy because that is very clear in the Hobart platform of the Labor Party. It says quite clearly:Labor will establish minimum enrolment requirements and accountability standards for the establishment of new non-government schools. Those already exist at the state level.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—What about accountability?BT4Dr KEMP—The Leader of the Opposition asks whether non-government schools should be accountable. Yes, they should be equally accountable—and the strongest accountability standards ever implemented are in the Howard government state grants legislation of last December. For the first time, non-government schools are equally accountable with government schools. That was never the case under the Labor Party, and the Hobart platform of the Labor Party makes it quite clear that that iniquitous new schools policy is coming back, and that is very bad news for low income families in Australia who want to choose the most appropriate school for their child.2602914:40:0026029Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, can you confirm that, according to the Australian National Training Authority's latest training report, the number of people commencing a training course last year declined and that the majority of this decline was for Australians aged under 25? Will you also confirm that 40,500 students were knocked back from getting into a TAFE course last year? Minister, hasn't the decline in training and skilling that you have presided over directly contributed to the largest ever recorded increase in youth unemployment?26029Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Mr Speaker, some questions are really quite hard to believe. You just wonder what is going on in that tactics committee. XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—Those are the statistics; are they hard to believe?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson has asked her question.BT4Dr KEMP—Let me just run through the absurdities in that question. We will start at the back. Youth unemployment has halved under this government. It was 34 per cent under the Leader of the Opposition when he was employment minister and it has come right down under this government so that it is now under five per cent of the total cohort of teenagers who are looking for—DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is defying the chair!BT4Dr KEMP—Youth unemployment has halved. That is the fact; check it out.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It is not a fact.BT4Dr KEMP—It is a fact.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It is not a fact.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, for the third time!BT4Dr KEMP—Secondly, we hear about a decline in training places. There has been an increase under this government—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—Commencing a training course.BT4Dr KEMP—Yes, I will get to that. There has been an increase under this government of some 386,000 places in TAFE over the last five years, a massive increase in training opportunities. The number of young people in apprenticeships and traineeships has more than doubled under this government to 294,000 in December—more than double what the Labor Party achieved. The member for Dickson asked me whether there was a decline in commencements last year. The answer is, yes, there has been a national decline in commencements but this decline is concentrated in one state. This decline is concentrated in the state of Queensland—and it is a direct result of the policies of the Labor Party government in that state. They make no secret of it because they—under pressure, of course, from their union mates—have introduced a whole set of new regulations which you are required to fulfil, if you are a small business employer, to take on a trainee. So the Queensland government have devastated the traineeship system in that state. I understand that they are now worried by the consequences of their policies.What we see in Queensland has been duplicated in other ways in other states. New South Wales has a pathetically low number of apprentices and trainees relative to the population of that state—in fact, it has fewer than the state of Victoria, even though it is a much larger state in terms of population—because it has been such a highly regulated, Trades Hall Council dominated training system under the Carr government. If the Labor Party were ever to get into power, we would see once again what we saw when Labor were in government previously. Remember that in 1995 the number of young people in apprenticeships and traineeships was the lowest for three decades. The Leader of the Opposition, in his first year as Minister for Employment, Education and Training, destroyed 20,000 apprenticeships. They are the realities.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 85, which provides that, where a member is guilty of tedious repetition, you may direct—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will resume his seat.BT4Dr KEMP—The Leader of the Opposition was, as we know, a very indifferent and bored education minister. He said he lost heart when he got the portfolio. He could not think of anything to do, yet 30 per cent of young people could not read and write properly. The Labor Party had devastated the apprenticeship system, yet he could not think of anything to do. If they ever get back into government, we will see yet another devastation of opportunities for young Australians.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table this Australian Bureau of Statistics report which shows 40,500 TAFE students missing out on a course this year. Leave not granted.2603114:47:0026031Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Small Business. Will the minister inform the House of proposals to comprehensively change the indirect tax system? What would the result of such proposals be on Dunkley's small businesses and on taxpayers right across Australia?26031Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I thank the member for Dunkley. He is a strong and constant advocate for small business in his electorate. Small businesses in the electorate of Dunkley, as small businesses everywhere, recognised long ago the need for tax reform. This government had the courage to deliver that reform. Through that reform, small business has gained from lower company rates of tax, lower personal income tax rates, lower capital gains tax rates and, soon to be introduced, a better regime of depreciation. There is an alternative, of course, being proposed by the Labor Party. It is called roll-back. It is about exemptions from the current system for goods and services provided, and it will hit small business in wave after wave of complexity. It has serious implications for government and small business, and the shadow minister—always on radio having a word—admitted that it would have an impact on small business. Let me read the transcript.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Read all of it.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—I am going to. It is from ABC 7NT in northern Tasmania. It says:Compere: Okay, what will roll-back specifically mean for small business?Joel Fitzgibbon: Well. Rollback can come with a cost and without a cost.The shadow minister, the member for Hunter, has admitted that small business will face a cost from roll-back.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Read it all.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—I have just read it. I will read it again. The compere said:Okay, what will roll-back specifically mean for small business?Joel Fitzgibbon: Well. Rollback can come with a cost and without a cost.Then the member for Hunter tried to deny in the House yesterday that he actually said it by saying that roll-back will come at a cost to government—the double whammy. First of all he admits that it will come at a cost to small business; then he admits that it is going to come at a cost to government. What this means is either higher taxes or a deficit, which means higher interest rates for small business.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison is warned!WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—The member for Hunter knows, as small business knows, that roll-back is going to be bad for small business and it is going to be bad for Australia. In two fits of candour, he had the courage last week to admit what his leader will not admit: roll-back is bad for Australia and bad for small business.2603114:50:0026031Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—My question is to the Minister for Community Services and I ask it on behalf of a family in my electorate with four dependent children. Minister, can you explain why it is that since this family's eldest son turned 16 and so became eligible for the youth allowance its total benefits have been cut by almost $50 a fortnight, although its assessable income has not changed but the costs of feeding a growing family certainly have? Minister, do you concede that the cost of supporting a child does not reduce when he or she turns 16? Can you outline what steps the government will take to address this clear anomaly affecting many Australian families?26031Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I would certainly like the honourable member for Calare to provide me with details of this particular family as I am not in a position to speak directly on it. What I can tell the honourable member for Calare is that there were substantial changes made to the youth allowance. These were positive changes, particularly for many families when they sent their children away for education. For the first time, many people on youth allowance were able to receive rent assistance which they were never entitled to before; this was a substantial increase. Likewise with families, there have been substantial increases in family tax benefit that came through with the changes to the new taxation system, which range between $20 and $50. As far as the actual assessment income test is concerned, yes, we did put that in, and the reason for that was that we were concerned that some families in the past were sheltering their income in obvious ways to minimise it to claim youth allowance, which if their assessable income had been used would have been inappropriate. That is why the new changes were brought into place for youth allowance. If you have a particular situation, as I mentioned in my introduction, I am happy to look at it.2603214:52:0026032Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Is the minister aware of allegations of logistical difficulties in the administration of the Australian Defence Force? How is the implementation of the defence white paper addressing those difficulties?26032Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—I thank the member for Deakin for his interest in defence matters. He reflects the broad interest on this side of the House to support Australia's defence forces, which we have done with the implementation of the white paper. Yes, there have been criticisms from the Labor Party, made as recently as yesterday, about a shortage of ammunition in respect of the land forces. This is a pretty incredible criticism from the Labor Party, which for years ran down the land forces. In response to their running down the land forces, we now find that this government in its white paper specifically made provision for additional ammunition for the land forces. This is a classic case. They create the problem; they are critical of many aspects of the operation of the Defence Force; and of course we are the ones providing a solution to the very problems that they created. In the white paper we have an additional $30 million for rebuilding ammunition war stocks and an additional $10 million to be spent each subsequent year over the next five years, and $17.9 million this year has been allocated to increasing the amount of training ammunition available. This is all within a package of over $5 billion which is directed to fill the holes created by Labor's mismanagement when they were responsible for the land forces. So the criticism is a bit rich.The opposition yesterday made a claim of additional spending, which I later found out had not in fact ever been put to me. They made a claim of a proposition, which has not yet been put to me and which has not been approved. Yet, when we look back over Labor's administration of the Defence Force, the Defence Force suffered years and years of maladministration, inefficiency and bungling from none other than the Leader of the Opposition, who for many years was in charge of Australia's defence forces. When we took over back in 1996, an internal Army assessment of their resources found that their land force structure was inadequate, the elements of the force were hollow and there were significant deficiencies in structure, training and equipment, to name just a few of the range of inadequacies which we inherited after 13 years of Labor Party neglect. No-one should forget that it was the Labor Party in government—and no-one should forget that the Leader of the Opposition was a defence minister—that in fact abolished two regular full-time infantry battalions and replaced them with two Ready Reserve battalions, but which could not be deployed. IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory is warned!WI4Mr REITH—It was this government, once we were elected, that started to address the problems of inadequacy in the Defence Force and that finally gave it the capacity to go to East Timor, as it did so successfully. None other than Hugh White, a former adviser to the Leader of the Opposition and to Bob Hawke and, most recently, deputy secretary in charge of development of the white paper, said this last year in a seminar on the white paper: If the government had not decided at significant expense to expand the Army in November-December last year, we would not have had the forces to sustain the deployment on East Timor, to undertake the commitments we have in the Olympics and also keep available in Townsville a brigade or two up our sleeve in case something else goes wrong.We do not need any lecturing from the opposition when it comes to the Army. They ran the Army down and it is this government that has put in the money, the resources and the support to bring the Army back to what it is today and what it will be in the future.2603314:57:0026033Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Can the minister confirm that the government has made the decision to withdraw from service the Navy's high-speed catamaran HMAS Jervis Bay, effective from May this year? Will the minister explain why he has taken this decision before Defence has carried out a study of options for the Navy to retain access to this unique capability, used in East Timor—a commitment made in the defence white paper? Minister, can you also explain why the officers and crew of the HMAS Jervis Bay have been instructed that the withdrawal must be done as secretly as possible and, once it has completed its final task at Operation Tandem Thrust, the vessel is to be hidden from public view until the Incat company is able to take the vessel back?26033Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The first thing to be said about that catamaran is that the reason it was leased for a period ending, I think, some time in the middle of this year is that the two craft that otherwise would have been available to provide us with the heavy lift to go to East Timor were not ready to fulfil that task. These are the two LPAs which the Leader of the Opposition, I think, was responsible for purchasing at a cost of $60 million. These rust buckets, bought for $60 million, three or four years later and $400 million of taxpayers' money having been spent, were still not ready and available to provide us with the lift for the Army to go to East Timor. How you can ask a question about the cat, given the abominable record of mismanagement when the Labor Party was in government, absolutely defies description.The state of play in respect of the cat is this. There was a lease of that particular piece of equipment through to, I think it was, May or June—I stand to be corrected—but certainly in the middle of this year. I have received a brief from the department in that respect. The advice that I have had from the department is that they have carried out a full assessment and a study of the future possible uses of that particular piece of equipment.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—That is your understanding.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham has asked his question.WI4Mr REITH—For us to keep that particular piece of equipment would mean that we would be doubling up, on top of the additional $400 million which had to be paid for the rust buckets.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Scrap it and hide it.WI4Mr REITH—No, there is a fair question there and I would like to answer it. The builders of that boat are very keen to secure offshore orders and I think everybody would like to see them and the other shipbuilder do well. So I have had representatives from the company in to talk to me about it. Obviously, I am not keen for us to be paying for more capability than we have already paid for, but, if there is something that we can, in conjunction with them, manage in respect of that ship, then I would be keen to do so, and there have been negotiations.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—So I deny all of the claims you want to make, because I have had a discussion and I have sought for the defence forces to have further discussions with Mr Clifford.8I4Martin, Stephen, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham has asked his question.WI4Mr REITH—If we can come to some arrangement which is in their interests and a reasonable position from the government's point of view, we will. 2603415:02:0026034Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—Mr Speaker—0L6Draper, Trish, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Makin is denying the member for Forde the right to be heard.6K6Mrs ELSON—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister inform the House how much the Australian people have had to pay to this point to make the Collins class submarines operational?26034Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—That is a most timely and appropriate question, I must say. I suppose the good news for the House is that in respect of the Collins class submarines, unlike the heavy lifts, the Kanimbla and the Manoora, the cost did not go from $60 million to $400 million. However, in respect of the Collins class, the original cost, I think, was estimated and announced to be $2.6 billion. It is today at about $5.1 billion. The question asks what additional funding we are looking to have to make it operational. Well, $266 million was approved by the government in December 1999 to achieve limited operational capability for two of the boats, which has now been achieved—another example of this government fixing up the mistakes of the Leader of the Opposition and other ministers for defence when Labor was in power.In September 2000 the government approved an additional $72 million—working out your next question, are you?—for propellor and hull improvements to another two submarines during this year. And, on top of all that, probably in the vicinity of $700 million will have to be provided to complete all the platform fixes and to replace the submarines' combat system. In other words, $5.1 billion and start counting another billion on top of that, give or take a few hundred.This is the sort of defence policy that you get when you have 13 years of Labor maladministration of defence—and we have the Leader of the Opposition putting himself up to be Prime Minister and in charge of our defence forces again! There is only one side of this parliament that has shown a capacity to properly manage the defence forces and to provide a 10-year plan, and it is this side. What a disgrace your record is on defence.2603415:04:0026034Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Minister, are you aware that in October last year the New South Wales Motor Accident Authority approached the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority, APRA, with concerns about insurance company HIH. Are you aware that APRA rejected the proposal that an inspector be appointed, claiming that they were working with HIH and did not wish to spook the markets. Minister, when did you first become aware of the problems with HIH and the proposal to appoint an inspector, and didn't the government's failure to act on this expose many thousands of people to great risk and see them pay for insurance that is now worthless?26034Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—The Australian government is very concerned for the policyholders of HIH, of which there were more than a million. The primary focus of the efforts of the government, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the general insurance industry should be the interests of policyholders. Without APRA's support the alliances which have provided support to policyholders—the alliances between HIH, QBE, NRMA and Allianz—would not have been possible, and these alliances have provided support to the overwhelming majority of policyholders. APRA has appointed an inspector to HIH, and I understand that was recently.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—When?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister is responding to the question.DK6Mr HOCKEY—That was recently, after HIH failed to lodge their returns with APRA. This process was begun prior to the company going into liquidation. I have, at APRA's request— 83SBurke, Anna, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Chisholm!83SBurke, Anna, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Chisholm! The minister has the call.DK6Mr HOCKEY—I have, at APRA's request, agreed to APRA issuing directions that will prevent the provisional liquidator from doing anything that will disadvantage policyholders, and this is further protection for HIH policyholders. I can further advise the House that ASIC has been investigating HIH and its former directors for some weeks in relation to corporate governance, market disclosure and possible insolvent trading. Now is not the time for anyone to be giving a running commentary on APRA—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—When did you first become aware?DK6Mr HOCKEY—ASIC or any other government agency, state or federal, that is involved in the provisional liquidation of HIH.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not frivolous. The question to the minister is when did he first become aware.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The minister is responding to the question.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—He's not.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned! The minister is responding to the question.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—He doesn't know the answer.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Port Adelaide is warned.DK6Mr HOCKEY—The best use of all available resources from APRA, from ASIC, from all government agencies and from the general insurance industry overall is to try and protect more than one million policyholders who have been disadvantaged by the provisional liquidation of HIH.2603515:08:0026035Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is also addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Is the minister aware of any recent announcements about banking policy? How will this policy affect smaller financial institutions that provide essential and valuable services such as the Karpaty Ukrainian Credit Union at the corner of Wall Street and Mayfield Road in Moorooka in my electorate of Moreton?26035Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank the member for Moreton for his question. Last Monday the Labor Party released its banking policy, and the Leader of the Opposition was standing outside a closed Westpac branch in Kingston where he claimed, under his policy, `Labor will re-establish banking services to areas from which they have been removed.' To do this, the Labor Party has pledged to spend $20 million a year, and that will be levied on the banking industry generally. Under the Labor Party's unique accounting procedures, $20 million a year will fund a nationwide financial services education plan covering investment advice, fee and charge advice and consumer complaints mechanisms. The $20 million a year will fund the financial services advisory board, a new regulatory body to oversee the social charter. The $20 million a year will fund the social charter, including five million totally fee-free accounts for social security recipients, as well as a disability plan, a credit plan and a small business plan. The $20 million fund will fund individual monitoring of bank services on a community by community basis in hundreds of towns and in thousands of suburbs across Australia. And the $20 million fund will deliver 500 new bank branches that closed in the last three years of Labor in government. There is some phoney accounting there. It is a bit like the free submarines that we heard about a little earlier. Who pays for this? It is obviously going to be the customers of financial institutions who are going to pay, and in particular it is going to be the customers of credit unions who are going to pay. For example, if you take the electorate of the member for Herbert, the Discovery Credit Union will have to pay $6,000 a year to pay for Labor's policy. In the member for Kalgoorlie's electorate, the Goldfields Credit Union members will have to pay $3,000 a year. In the member for Moreton's electorate, the 500 members of the Karpaty Ukrainian Credit Union, which we went and visited the other day, will have to pay about $3,000 a year. In the member for Richmond's electorate, the Southern Cross Credit Union members in Tweed Heads will have to pay around $12,000 a year. Even in the Labor Party, what will the member for Bass say when she goes to the Launceston Examiner and says that the members of the Connect Credit Union in Tasmania will have to pay $40,000 a year? Even their mates in the Victorian Teachers Credit Union will have to pay $45,000 a year to pay for Labor's banking policies. It does not add up. The credibility of the Labor Party on banking is ruined, primarily because their policy does not have credibility and because their policy lacks integrity. 2603615:13:0026036Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Minister, when did you first become aware of the problems with HIH and the proposal last October to appoint an inspector?26036Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I was not made aware of any proposal last October.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—When did you become aware of it?DK6Mr HOCKEY—I was not aware of any proposal last October. I was first made aware of a proposal by APRA to appoint an administrator when I was informed by APRA after HIH failed to deliver their accounts to APRA in early March of this year.2603615:14:0026036Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister inform the House of the facts concerning funding to the states for public hospitals? Is the minister aware of any other commentary on this matter?26036Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. In 1998 the Commonwealth negotiated a new five-year Australian health care agreement with the states. Under this five-year agreement, which runs from the middle of 1998 to 2003, the government will provide $31.7 billion to the states and territories for their public hospitals. This is a massive increase of 28 per cent over the previous health care agreement from 1993 to 1998. What is more, this is all new money; it is not a fiddle with financial assistance grants, which is what occurred with the previous health care agreement. During the last year of the Labor government, states and territories were provided with $4.5 billion for public hospitals. In contrast, at the end of this agreement it will be $6.9 billion. This represents a $2.4 billion increase, or 55 per cent, over a decade. The state by state figures are interesting. What we have found is that, while the Commonwealth has been consistently and substantially increasing its funding, the states have not come to the party. Since the 1998-99 budget, the New South Wales government has reduced its contribution to the state hospital system by $33 million, which compares with an increase from the Commonwealth of $194 million. Over the 1999-2000 financial year, the New South Wales government reduced its own contribution to the health system by a massive $93 million, including an underspend of $63 million. In the honourable member's own state of South Australia, while total spending this financial year on hospital services is budgeted to increase by only $6 million, the Commonwealth's contribution is going up by $26 million. So, in other words, of the extra $26 million that we have sent to South Australia, they have pocketed $20 million for something else, put $6 million into hospitals and not increased their own contribution by one cent.Last week I was shown a brochure that was distributed in the honourable member's state but in the seat of Adelaide by the Labor Party. This brochure states that John Howard cut $800 million from our public hospital system when he first came to power and that he has held down funding ever since. The simple fact is that this year the funding under the Howard government is $6.3 billion for public hospitals—$1.8 billion more than Labor's last year of office—a 28.6 per cent increase in five years. This is further accentuated by the fact that we have fixed private health insurance. We are providing a new stream of revenue to states through private health funds that they were losing previously. So the next time that a Labor candidate wants to comment on public hospitals, I suggest that they do not use the research of the member for Jagajaga. Given that this was in the seat of Adelaide, I have the reply from the member for Adelaide to the person authorising the brochure. I have to say that it is a far more polite reply than I probably would have written and, for the benefit of honourable members, I will table it. 2603715:17:0026037Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, do you recall yesterday describing Labor's dairy industry policy, including my support for the farmers' call for a national dairy summit, as a `talkfest'? Are you aware that yesterday your Queensland National Party colleague the opposition leader Mike Horan supported my call for a national dairy summit, saying that a meeting of all those involved in the dairy industry, including the farmers, processors and major purchasers, could work through the problem together? Minister, given the mess that you have made of dairy deregulation, isn't it time that you did yet another backflip, listened to the dairy farmers and joined with me and your National Party colleagues in looking for a solution to your mess?Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister for Forestry and Conservation! Deputy Prime Minister! The same constraint I expect from the Leader of the Opposition I expect from all other frontbench holders.26037Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I am aware of the comments referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. I have even read his scant dairy policy, which of course offers absolutely no hope to dairy farmers anywhere in Australia. Perhaps one of the worst features of his proposal is to strip away the assistance that this government has already provided to dairy communities through the Dairy Regional Adjustment Program and to therefore deny the opportunity to provide alternative jobs to the people of Gloucester, in the electorate of the member for Paterson, whose dairy factory has closed. He seeks to remove the capacity to provide additional funds in my electorate, where the dairy factory at Monto has closed, or in the electorate of Dawson, where the factory in Mackay has closed. What the people in these areas need to know is that it is Labor's policy to provide no assistance to those regional communities. All they are talking about is yet another talkfest. Labor members have been wandering around, endeavouring to glean from local communities cases that they can raise in parliament where there have been problems, but the reality is that they have no answers.I have had a large number of meetings with dairy industry leaders. I have met with processors, I have met with retailers and I have met with all of the district organisations. In his question, the Leader of the Opposition referred to Mr Horan, the National Party leader in Queensland, but he is now not in the least bit interested in hearing the answer. He has turned his back on the facts in the same way that he turns his back on the dairy industry. He could not care less about the dairy farmers of Australia; he turns his back on the issue. He could not care less. I think that this is a shameful way to treat the people of Australia and particularly the dairy farmers. Mr Horan has organised a number of meetings with the dairy industry and has put together a plan, which was put to the people of Queensland at the last election. In my discussions with them, I have to say that the industry leaders have expressed no desire whatsoever to have a roundtable conference of the nature referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, the proposal has been specifically rejected by them. I therefore will be working individually with the parties to seek to establish resolutions to the many issues involved. This government will take a responsive and sympathetic approach to the needs of the dairy farmers—something that the Leader of the Opposition will never do. 2603815:22:0026038Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister inform the House of the benefits to Australian exporters, like those in my electorate of Barker, from the government's effective reforms of the waterfront?26038Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the member for Barker for his question. From the outset we should point out that the benefits to Australia's exporters of waterfront reform can be counted in tens of millions of dollars. Our government was elected to office to improve the economic circumstances of the Australian community, and particularly our exporters, and we have seen that happen in a number of dramatic ways, of course, with the economic reforms that we have introduced that have significantly benefited exporters, workplace relations reforms that have significantly benefited exporters and waterfront reform that has also significantly benefited Australia's exporters.Yesterday we saw the release of statistics in the BTE's Waterlinebrief which indicated significant improvement in the crane rate at Australia's container ports. Crane rates, at 25.5 lifts per hour, have for the first time exceeded the government's target of 25 container lifts per hour. This represents a 40 per cent increase in productivity since 1997. Australia's exporters, and significantly Australia's agricultural exporters, are the big winners out of this. Of course, we can all remember the opposition that the Australian Labor Party and their union mates had to these reforms. It took the election of a coalition government to have the backbone to address this most inefficient sector of Australia's economy to ensure that Australia's wool industry, Australia's cotton industry, Australia's beef industry and Australia's dairy industry—which was the subject of an opposition question—received the benefits of the reforms in this area. That has been widely acknowledged by a number of different areas. The NFF yesterday acknowledged:All farmers ever asked for of the waterfront was world's best practice. We expect our farmers to produce world's best practice. They expect the rest of the economy to support them with world's best practice.He went on to say that the cost of moving a container from south-east Australia to Japan used to be exactly double the cost of moving the same sort of product over a similar distance from California to Japan. But the best quote of all on yesterday's statistics did not necessarily come from an exporter. I will read the quote:I think it is fair to say that things have changed for the better. We have always been very positive about lifting productivity rates. Things have changed for the better.This is not coming from the government, it is not coming from the stevedores, it is not coming from exporters; in fact, that is a quote from the National Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, Mr Paddy Crumlin. He is acknowledging the improvement that we have achieved over the last couple of years with these reforms. The thing that exporters do not want to see in the future is the election of a Labor government, a lazy Labor government in the future, under the control of the unions not just from without but also from within.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice260382603815:25:0026038Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—Mr Speaker, I would like to add to an answer.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister may proceed.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—As the House would be aware, APRA is an independent agency. The member for Hotham asked me a question in relation to a request from the New South Wales government to APRA. I am advised by APRA that the New South Wales government had the power to appoint an inspector and did not until after APRA had issued HIH with a show cause notice as to why an inspector should not be appointed. That is, they had no capacity to move. APRA moved. The New South Wales government had the capacity to move and did not. The second point is that the New South Wales government never advised or instructed APRA that it should appoint an inspector. That is the advice provided to me by APRA. Questions to the Speaker260392603915:26:0026039Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, I would be grateful if you would write to the Treasurer seeking reasons for his delay in answering questions Nos 1852 and 2095 standing in my name and to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation also seeking reasons for his delay in answering question No. 2130 standing in my name.26039SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matters raised by the member for Calare, as the standing orders provide.Personal Explanations2603915:27:0026039Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—I do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation stated that this side of the House had not made any submissions to the banking inquiry and that we used the banks' policy to develop our own. This certainly misrepresents me and my party—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is the member for Lyons aware that he can only indicate where he has been misrepresented?BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—Yes. I made a submission to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, and I believe that the Banking Association has used some of my submission to write its own policy. I seek leave to table my submission.Leave not granted.Questions to the Speaker260392603915:28:0026039Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a couple of questions for you. Are you aware of a painting titled The Landing atGallipoli, painted by an artist named Dixon? Are you also aware that this painting was presented to the parliament by an individual in memory of gallant deeds? Are you also aware that this painting hung in the public areas of Old Parliament House but now hangs in a minister's office, unavailable to the public? Mr Speaker, would you review the status of this painting and examine whether it could be returned to a public area of Parliament House, if not for the full year at least for the week leading up to Anzac Day?26039SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Cowan. Can I, however, make the observation that, as many members will be aware—and in fact it is true in the office that I occupy as well—there are paintings that have been in the public area and are moved into other areas of the building in order to rest them, and some of them are moved into storage in order to rest them. I do not know what the history of the painting The Landing at Gallipoli is, but I will follow up the matter and I will endeavour to do all I can to see that it is on public display at an appropriate time.83RMr EDWARDS—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The reason I have raised it is that there were some veterans who had driven 14 hours to get to Parliament House. They were keen to see the painting and they were advised that it was unavailable. For that reason, I would be most appreciative if you could pursue the matter.26039SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—As I said, I will follow up the matter. As I would restate and as previous occupiers of the chair are aware, there are occasions when paintings that have been in the public area are removed from the public area for reasons of resting. It is a policy that I do not understand, but I accept it is done by those who know more about art than I do.2604015:30:0026040Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Mr Speaker, on 7 December, question No. 2250 addressed to the Treasurer about the annual general meeting practices of Boral, Westfield and Davnet first appeared on the Notice Paper in my name. As it is more than three months since this question first appeared, I would be grateful if you would write to the Treasurer under standing order 150 and facilitate an answer for me.26040SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Lowe as the standing orders provide.Auditor-General's Reports260402604010000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 31 of 2000-2001 entitled Performance audit—Administration of consular services—Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.Ordered that the report be printed.Documents2604026040Reith, Peter, MPMr 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 Importance260402604010000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Dobell proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The damage which the Government has inflicted on public education, reducing education and training opportunities for all Australians.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—15:32:0026040Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, there is a line where the soothsayer says to Caesar, `Beware the ides of March.' Public Education Day this year was the ides of March and the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs should have paid attention to the soothsayer—`Beware the ides of March.' The minister went on the John Faine program on ABC radio in Melbourne and gave one of the most humiliating interviews that even David Kemp has given in his long time as a member of this parliament.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr Kemp—Why don't you circulate it?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—He wants us to circulate it to everyone. Let me try to encourage the minister to perhaps practise a bit on his reading because, if he does circulate that humiliating interview to his colleagues, he will be circulating the following quote. When he was asked whether it is true that Haileybury College, one of the elite category 1 schools in Melbourne, was going to have a 273 per cent increase in its funding under his new school funding system, the minister gave the following humiliating answer: You didn't inform me before the program that you were going to quote that figure. I was not given that figure at all. I've been on a plane for the last hour. Well, I've been on a plane. I've just got off the plane, John.' Minister, you have had 14 days since you got off the plane. We asked him earlier today whether it was true that Haileybury College has had an increase of more than 200 per cent and, again today, just like on the ides of March, the minister refused to answer the question. He refused to answer the question on the ides of March because he complained that he was so confused after getting off the plane. Today, he has carefully refused to answer the question in question time as to whether Haileybury College has had an increase of more than 200 per cent. So, Minister, at the end of my contribution here today, you will have 15 minutes of opportunity to tell us whether or not Haileybury College has had an increase of more than 200 per cent in its funding. You cannot use the excuse that, 14 days after your plane trip, you are still confused and disoriented. We want you to tell us today whether it is true that Haileybury College, like these other elite category 1 schools, has had massive increases when local public schools, parish Catholic schools and low fee Christian schools with much greater needs have received a pittance. Our criticism of the funding scheme that this government proposed was not that there were increases to non-government schools. We supported increases to needy non-government schools. The Labor Party has had that position since the days of Gough Whitlam and Kim Beazley Sr when we committed to support funding to non-government schools on a needs basis. Our criticism of his funding package is twofold. First of all, he gave massive increases averaging $1 million per year to the wealthy category 1 schools. That is our first criticism—giving schools like Haileybury massive increases averaging $1 million a year. Our second criticism is that, having given $700 million extra to the non-government school system, why was there no balancing increase in funding for public schools which have significant needs?The point we put to the minister is: why is it that the government is giving average increases of $1 million a year to those elite category 1 schools when local Catholic parish schools get average increases of $60,000 a year and the local public schools, apart from inflation, get an average increase of only $4,000 for the whole of the school? So $1 million for the wealthy category 1 schools, $60,000 for the local parish Catholic schools and $4,000 for the local public school. This is the system that the minister in question time described as `a fair and just funding system'. This is the system that the minister claimed in question time delivers the largest increases to the needier schools—$1 million to the category 1 schools and only $4,000 to the local public school. Only David Kemp, this minister for education, would think that is a fair and just system of funding Australia's schools.Both the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and the Prime Minister have claimed that the reason they are providing massive increases to category 1 schools is that that it is somehow going to lower the fees. They believe that this policy is going to mean that low income families get access to schools like King's and Geelong Grammar. We knew that this would be tested very quickly, because the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 passed this parliament before the end of last year and the schools were going to have to set their fees for the coming year. When you look at what has happened to the fees for those category 1 schools, Minister, there is not much evidence that low income families have got better access to the schools that you have given the largest increases to. Let me start with Sydney. The King's School's fees went up $917 per student per year—they were already more than $10,000 a year, so they increased by $911 or eight per cent; Scots College in Sydney, up $1,328 per year per student; Sydney Grammar School, up $1,335 per year per student. Turning to Melbourne and the school the minister attended—Scotch College—it increased its fees by $828; and the Presbyterian Ladies College, by $840. The minister made the terrible mistake at question time of saying that the reason why he claims that low income families will get access to these elite category schools is that some of these schools have promised to lower their fees sometime in the future—cross their heart and hope to die—and he gave us the foolish example of Wesley. The reason why that was a pretty stupid example for the minister to quote is that Wesley has actually increased its fees by 19 per cent this year. And the minister says, `Well, they have promised to lower them by $400 sometime in the future,' having increased them by a massive amount—$2,170—this year. Well, Minister, it is going to be small comfort to those low income families that you claim you care about that Wesley might reduce its fees by $400 some time in the future when, this year, the fees are up by more than $2,000. The point we make is that the Australian government has to increase its funding and its investment in public schools across the country. Kim Beazley has made the commitment that increasing investments to public schools is going to be one of Labor's highest priorities. Reversing the trend of the decline in the percentage of federal funding going to government schools is something that we are going to achieve. One of the reasons why we believe this has to be done is the unbalanced nature of the funding increases that the government passed through this House last year. Investing in schools is not only an investment in the future of Australian kids who are attending schools across the country; it is also an investment in the future of the country. Every Australian child must get a decent education at their local school—whether it is a school like Wesley or whether it is the local parish school or a government school with special needs. Every one of those schools has to work even harder to raise the performance of the kids at those schools, and by increasing federal investment in those schools we can make a difference. We have to target those funding increases into the schools with the greatest need. The difference between the Labor Party and the coalition is that they think the needier schools are those category 1 schools like King's and Geelong Grammar. They think the schools that should receive the largest increases are the schools that already have massive resources. We say that scarce resources need to be targeted to the schools with the greatest needs—whether it be a local public school, a low-fee Christian school, a Lutheran school in the Northern Territory looking after Aboriginal kids in a small community, a Catholic school looking after kids in the local parish or a local public school with many kids with special needs. They are the schools which have greater call on those funds, Minister, not schools like King's, Geelong Grammar, Wesley and others.It is not only schools that need extra money. We have seen over the last few years of this government a freeze on federal investment in the national training effort. One of the greatest achievements of the Keating government was the establishment of ANTA and the negotiation of that with the state governments. As soon as this government was elected, they abolished the growth funding—they put a freeze on the funding for our local TAFE colleges across the country.When our generation left school, some people could get a job for life. When the current generation of kids at school go into the work force, you can guarantee that they are going to have several jobs during their working lives. It is our responsibility to make sure that they get a very solid foundation at school and that they have expanded access to quality training funded through a body like ANTA. It is important not only for kids at school today. It is also important to the unemployed that they have access to the sorts of training programs that the member for Dickson and other people have been arguing for, so that they have a chance to get new skills and a better chance to get a job. It is also important that ANTA have extra investment so that we can make sure that existing workers can upgrade their skills so that the metal worker or the welder can become a paraprofessional—can become someone who can use non-destructive testing to find out ways of making their own job more secure, their own factory more productive and the country a better exporter. By investing in training not only do we help young people and unemployed people, we also help existing workers get more secure jobs. That makes all of those Australians more able to have a satisfying, secure job and, moreover, to provide for their families.The problem we have at the moment is that this government and this minister in particular refuse to admit the truth. We saw in question time on Tuesday an example of how this minister has sought to rewrite the past. It is that old George Orwell line, `Whoever controls the past, determines the future.' If you look at what the minister has sought to do in the Commonwealthh higher education funding report for the 2000-2003 triennium you can see that the report that the minister signed up until last year used to demonstrate that the Commonwealth's direct investment in higher education has been declining since the cuts of 1996. We are $3 billion behind—between 1997 and 2002, using the projected figures—because of the cuts that this minister has implemented. First of all he denies that there has ever been the funding cut; he admits that the forward estimates have been revised down—but he does not call it a funding cut. He simply changes the graph. So, whereas last year's graph showed a decline in the Commonwealth investment in higher education, history gets rewritten so that this year the Commonwealth direct investment gets combined with HECS. So HECS has increased and it looks like the Commonwealth has not cut its investment in universities. It is like Stalin asking everyone to return the Soviet Encyclopaedia so they can white-out Trotsky; so that they can delete the people who have been purged. This minister seeks to rewrite history so that he can cover up the fact that there have been massive funding cuts to university teaching and research. What Labor advocates is a series of measures to improve investment in education, training and research in our country. My colleagues know that we already have nine positive policy initiatives out there. Let me go through them very quickly: education priority zones; our plan for new scholarships to encourage more of our best graduates to go into teaching; extra funding for professional development for teachers to improve the quality of teaching in classrooms; abolition of the unfair enrolment benchmark adjustment; our plan to cut back the funding increases for those elite category 1 schools; the establishment of the learning gateway so that we have more Australian made, high-quality Internet content for kids at Australian schools relevant to our curriculum; the establishment of the University of Australia online, so we make Australia the world leader in online education and give an extra 100,000 Australians access to online undergraduate study; and our commitment to double the number of research fellowships—which they have half matched. We want them to match the other half because we believe we need to be investing more in quality research. Finally—and this was announced at Southern Cross University—we are committed to investing in improving communications for regional universities and establishing a special pool of 400 research training places in our regional universities.Last time when I spoke on a matter of public importance I spoke about this minister's circus of backflips. I suggested that the collective noun for `backflips' should be a `circus'. I spoke about this minister's circus of backflips on a series of measures, such as the EBA. This illness has spread from David Kemp to pretty well every minister in the government. Just look at what has happened in the last few weeks: we had the government backflip on BAS; there was the backflip on closing the loopholes on trusts; we had the backflip on petrol; we had the backflip on connecting the reduction in petrol excise to the increase in beer excise; and today we had the backflip on postal deregulation. This circus of backflips is spreading from minister to minister.What we say to the Australian people is that only the election of a Beazley Labor government will make the difference. Only the election of Labor will expand access to quality child-care education. Only the election of Labor will make public schools a priority for the federal government again. Only the election of Kim Beazley will mean that funding for non-government schools is allocated on a genuine needs basis. Only the election of a Labor government will restore growth to ANTA and quality training. Only the election of Labor will ensure that the crisis that Australian universities are facing in teaching and research is thoroughly addressed. We say that, come the election date—whenever it is held in November—all of these issues will be brought to the top of the nation's policy agenda. (Time expired)15:47:0026043Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—We have just had another lacklustre performance by the member for Dobell. He is so lacklustre that you occasionally think he is disappearing from the front bench. He seems to spend less time in the House than almost any of the other shadow ministers. It is no wonder that the Leader of the Opposition has failed to include the member for Dobell on the knowledge nation committee. He felt that there was no contribution that could be expected from the member for Dobell in the development of the knowledge nation policy because the member for Dobell constantly speaks a series of half-truths and misrepresentations and never really gets to the substantive issues of education facing this country. The Howard government, when it came to office, had to face up to some of those issues because they had not been dealt with in 13 years under the previous government. What we heard from the member for Dobell—and indeed what we heard from his leader—was a whole series of empty, rhetorical, motherhood statements about how important education is and how much they are going to do for it. You never hear of the spending figures. You never hear of a dollar committed. The policies that he ran through will impress no-one if they are supposed to be a comprehensive and significant set of policies to address the key issues facing Australia.What are the key educational issues that this country faces? In the schools area, perhaps the key issue is that every young Australian is entitled to a decent education and we must make sure that they get a decent education. When we came to office, we found that 30 per cent of young Australians could not read and write properly after 13 years of Labor. We found that when the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, was the education minister he deliberately concealed information which revealed the extent of the problems of illiteracy and innumeracy. He did so because the unions would not allow this information to be published. We published the information: we put it on the public record.We established national standards for literacy and numeracy for the first time. We put in place a national plan under which every child in years 3, 5 and 7 would be assessed for their literacy and numeracy skills. We put substantial additional funding into meeting the needs of students in the area of literacy and numeracy so that they could read and write and continue successfully with their education and continue successfully through secondary school—not drop out early, not become long-term unemployed, as happened under the Labor Party government. We have now had the results of the first national surveys of literacy and numeracy and we find that the number of students who do not have adequate standards has fallen from something like 30 per cent under Labor to around 15 to 10 per cent. It is not nearly good enough, but the rate has been halved under our government.We have taken particular pains to make sure that young indigenous Australians get a decent education. Young indigenous Australians are, by far, the most disadvantaged young people in this country today. When we came to office, 70 per cent of young indigenous Australians in year 3 could not read adequately. It is against that sort of fact that you should hear the rhetoric from the member for Dobell. Seventy per cent of year 3 indigenous students could not write adequately; and 75 per cent of year 5 indigenous students could not read or write at adequate levels. We have a long way to go, but what is clear is that the attention we have given to building educational opportunities for young indigenous Australians is working.The year 12 retention rate for indigenous students has risen from 29 per cent in 1996 when we came into office, to 32 per cent in 1998, to 35 per cent in 1999. Record numbers of young indigenous students are now undertaking tertiary study. There were 8,000 indigenous students in 1999—a 17.6 per cent increase on Labor's last year in office. The number of indigenous young people undertaking training has increased from 1,237 in 1995 to 5,227 in September 2000. We have acted to secure educational opportunity in a way that Labor never did in 13 years of office. When we looked at the senior years of schooling, we found the appalling situation of some 30,000 young people dropping out of school every year at year 10 and going into the unemployment queues. The percentage of teenagers who were unemployed and looking for full-time work reached 34 per cent under Kim Beazley. We have cut that rate of youth unemployment dramatically by giving attention to improving education and to improving and widening the curriculum in those senior years. We have put in policies that have vastly lifted the opportunities for students who were bored by school, who were not going on to university—and 70 per cent of students do not go straight from school to university—to undertake a relevant curriculum. In 1995, about 25,000 students were doing vocational education in schools. Last year, it was 167,000 students. That is a very significant improvement. What is more, they were not doing second-class vocational education courses; a lot of them were doing educational courses that involved work in industry—structured workplace training. Many more of them were doing courses that would get them certificates that would be recognised by industry. The result is that we are seeing dramatic increases in retention rates in public schools around Australia. I was at Whittlesea Secondary College a couple of weeks ago and I asked the principal there, who was saying how wonderful these Howard government programs had been for her students, `What has this program done for your students?' She said, `In 1995, our retention rate was about 38 per cent.' I asked, `What is it today?' She said, `Eighty-five per cent.' You can visit government schools around Australia and you will hear this story. I visited the Kwinana High School and staff told me that, as a result of our program, retention had risen from 65 per cent to 85 per cent within the last three years. This is a story, which is constantly repeated. Indeed, it has even been repeated by the Leader of the Opposition. Some months ago he paid a visit to the marginal seat of Isaacs where he visited Lyndhurst Secondary College, which is one of the schools that has benefited enormously from our programs. He found that retention rates at that school had risen from the 60s up to the 80s. He called a press conference. What did he say to the assembled press when he met them? He said: Schools like this and the programs in these schools are the building blocks of the knowledge nation.There we go; we have got there. We are actually putting into place the programs that, according to the Labor Party, will achieve the knowledge nation. In our party, we believe that education has got something to do with a knowledge nation. That is why I had something to do with the innovation statement. Well over half the money in that innovation statement went into programs in education, because we believe in reversing the brain drain, in bringing the best and brightest young Australians back to Australia. That is a real plan for innovation in Australia. The Labor Party does not have a plan. It has a few motherhood statements. Let us get to the point that so preoccupies the Labor Party in its effort to attract the support of the Australian Education Union: the funding of public and private schools in Australia. Let us first of all state what the facts are. The facts are that the Howard government is now engaged in a massive investment program in Australian schooling, in both government schooling and non-government schooling. It is the biggest investment program that any federal government has ever undertaken. It is still true that the federal government provides only a relatively small fraction of the total funding for government schools, 88 per cent of which is provided by the states. That has always been the case. That was the case under Labor; it is no different under us. What the Labor Party is engaged in is one of the most divisive and disgraceful campaigns that we have seen for many years. Indeed, we have seen the Labor Party working with its state colleagues to politicise the schools to spread union propaganda. The Beattie government and its Minister for Education, Anna Bligh, connived directly with the union to make sure that union propaganda was sent back to parents in the kit bags of primary school students. I had many angry and disillusioned parents saying to me that they saw this as a betrayal of trust. They send their children to school to learn to read and write. They do not want their schools to be hotbeds of political activity on behalf of the Labor Party and the trade union movement. They were disgusted when the Labor Party and the unions worked together to send union propaganda back to parents in the kit bags of primary school students. This has happened in Queensland, and it has happened in New South Wales. The South Australian government has forbidden for years the use of schools to spread political propaganda. So what is illegal in some states is connived in by the Labor Party and the unions in another state. Let us be clear about this: the Australian Education Union has a very clear policy of no funding for non-government schools. It does not believe— MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—We disagree.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—The member for Dobell says they disagree with that. That is not true for every branch of the Labor Party. I have here a letter that I received from the President of the Cleveland Branch of the Labor Party, Deidre Morrow. She says:Dear Dr KempAt the monthly branch meeting of the Cleveland Queensland Branch of the Australian Labor Party the subject of funding for private and government schools was discussed at great length, which resulted in the following motion being tabled and carried:It be adopted as federal government policy—I suppose that means Labor government policy, too—that all funding for private schools be phased out and public funding be redirected to government schools.This is from the Australian Labor Party in Queensland. That would mean that we are going to be seeing the Labor Party, if this policy is put into effect, ripping $9 billion out of the Catholic parish schools and taking $5,000 per head away from the Aboriginal community schools. That is the kind of debate which goes on within the Australian Labor Party. The member for Dobell says, `We are not going to do that,' but can we believe him? One thing we do know they are going to do—because the Leader of the Opposition has told us and I challenge the member for Dobell to deny it—is this: they are going to take thousands of dollars away from community schools that charge low fees and operate with very minimal resources. For example, the Bethel Community School in the electorate of Werriwa is going to lose $3,000 per student if Mr Beazley puts his policy into effect. That school charges fees of about $200 a year and it operates out of a local hall. Kim Beazley and the member for Dobell think this is a wealthy elite school in category 1, and they are going to come in and they are going to cut the fees. They are going to take the funding away from these schools because these are wealthy elite schools—the Bethel learning centre is a wealthy elite school. That is the nonsense and the hypocrisy that we are getting from the Labor Party in its efforts to attract the votes of the Australian Education Union.I am pleased to see that this was exposed by a very respected journalist, Paul Kelly, in the Australian yesterday. In a very thoughtful article he said, `States cry wolf over public school funding.' He said:Last year's Labor-Democrat minority report of the Senate committee that reviewed Howard's $22 billion school funding bill—A massive amount of money which delivers about $1.6 billion extra to government schools over the next four years—raised a dire scenario—So said the Labor Party and the Democrats. This is what the Labor Party and the Democrats said:"The most serious threat to the government schools system as a result of Commonwealth policies that failed to support it is the eventual likelihood that it will become marginalised."That was the Labor Party and the Democrat view. What was Paul Kelly's view on this? He said that was `nonsense'. Nonsense was his view. (Time expired)16:02:0026046Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—It is fitting that the minister's time has expired because, come the next election, his time as education minister will expire. I estimate that, if the election is held in December, which is probably the last possible date, he has nine pay packets left as a minister. Judgment will be passed on him at the election for all the rhetoric and the propaganda that he has been going on with today and that he continues to propagate at taxpayers' expense in the community. I can tell you that, from my reading of the electorate at this point in time, it will be brutal. The more times this minister gets up in a public place the more votes will flow to Labor. Why? They do not believe him. They now see behind his rhetoric and they judge him on his deeds. When he first got into the ministry in 1996 he was not good enough for the cabinet so he stalked Senator Vanstone, the then minister, until he got into cabinet. He undermined her, and ever since he has been in the position he has been undermining public education. That is what this debate is about today. We recently had Public Education Day and I spoke with a number of constituents. They organised to meet with all their local members and they were concerned about public education. I spoke to teachers, parents and students, and they are all in despair over the state of public education in this country. They are doing it tough. Who is the one person that they blame? The one name that comes back, time and again? Dr Kemp, the current minister for education. The government continues to pursue its policy of favouring non-government schools over the needs of government schools. The government insists on implementing its privatisation agenda in terms of education. It has huge increases in funding for the private school sector, aimed directly at undermining the public education sector.To illustrate, in an answer to a question on notice in the Senate estimates hearings in January this year, the following information was provided. In 1995-96, the government schools' share of Commonwealth funding for schools was 42.2 per cent, which was reduced to 41.5 per cent in 1996-97, reduced again to 39.5 per cent in 1997-98, and reduced again to 38.5 per cent in 1998-99. It is estimated that the government school proportion will continue to decline to around 34.6 per cent in 2003-04. The corresponding figures, not surprisingly, for the non-government schools show an increase from 57.8 per cent in 1995-96 to 61.5 per cent in 1998-99, with an estimated 65.4 per cent in 2003-04. Those figures speak for themselves.What has happened is that this new SES system has reignited the state aid debate and it has polarised the community. It is not only creating divisions between the different school sectors but also causing tensions within the non-government sector and between schools. They are the facts. The polarisation of the Australian community continues to be endorsed by this minister for education. This is most painfully evidenced in recent developments, as I said, in public education funding at both school and post school levels. There is a danger that this polarisation will worsen as new jobs and new opportunities are drawn to the already wealthy and well-educated areas of Australia.The minister talks about choice—for the majority of Australians there is no choice about where their children are schooled. The minister would, however, minimise any choice by developing a funding model which encourages children away from public schools and into private schools. The minister claims that his states grants bill pushes fees down, thus affording more choice for Australian parents, yet the recent massive hikes in school fees in private schools indicate the complete opposite. The choice of parents to send their children to private schools is also becoming more restricted under this minister.The majority of Australians send their children to public schools because, by and large, they are satisfied with the level of education their children receive and because that is what they are able to afford. There is a responsibility on government to ensure the provision of quality and affordable compulsory education for all its citizens. It is not the responsibility of the government to talk about equity in education and then provide massive funding to the private sector. Equity is not achieved through taking from one sector and giving to another.Judith Brett, who now teaches politics at La Trobe University and who was tutored by Dr Kemp at Melbourne University, gives us an insight into this minister in her article in the Age on November 21, 2000. In that article she was searching to explain the thinking behind the minister's extraordinary scheme for funding of schools. She said: He believes parents demonstrate their political virtues by choosing private education, and they deserve to be rewarded. Kemp's policy is ideologically driven and comes up with results that defy the pragmatic common sense on which the Liberal Party prides itself. The last ideologically driven former academic who was given his head with policy was John Hewson, who lost the unlosable 1993 election with his Fightback.I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this minister is contributing to a walloping for his party at the next election, because public education will be well and truly on the agenda. It is interesting that she basically summarised in her article the effect of his policy:... lavishly resourced schools get money they don't need and many underresourced schools get peanuts.We should also consider the minister's inability to finalise a funding agreement with the states and territories in relation to vocational education and training. In this process, we can observe that there is little commitment from this government to ensuring an equitable share of funds available to vocational education and training.The proposal by the minister for the new Australian National Training Authority agreement has been dismissed by the majority of states and territories as illogical and unfair. The five ministers issued a joint press release recently, dated 16 March, headed `TAFE faces crisis—Kemp offers a pittance from 2002'. That is basically the history of this minister. He says one thing, talks it up—a smoke and mirrors performance—but when you go into the detail he offers peanuts. It is all ideologically driven. And he is not the only minister; there is also the new workplace relations minister, the ex workplace relations minister who went to defence and who is the H.R. Nicholls Society's treasurer. It is all coming home to roost. We have had the results in Western Australia, Queensland and the recent Ryan by-election. These are not opinion polls. These are people voting with their feet. This is a government that came in and raised hopes and expectations. The Prime Minister talked about being comfortable and relaxed—well, there are not too many people, when it comes to the education system, who are comfortable and relaxed at the moment. They are doing it hard, and they are doing it hard because they have a zealot in the job as minister for education. He is running an ideological agenda, a class driven ideological agenda. But the Australian electorate is not the American electorate, and you will pay at the next election. I do not believe we have to do much between now and the next election, other than put up a photograph of this minister in every school, every university and every TAFE college in the country with the line, `Do you want this to continue to govern the education system in the country?' The swing will be massive. Recently, I was privileged to deliver an occasional address at the University of Sydney social work graduation ceremony. Academic after academic was coming up to me in despair. These are decent people who value a public education system, who are working at our universities, and they see it getting tougher and worse, and this government is to blame. It is class driven. At the end of the day, as I say, you can rave on about unions and their propaganda. The unions and the school communities are running grassroots campaigns and they are getting the ammunition from you. It is a direct response to your policies. But what do you do? You pinch the taxpayers' money, a modern-day Goebbels, to run your political agenda. Every time you do it, all you are doing is guaranteeing the destruction of your party at the next election. That is why they are sullen faced on the other side, and why public education will be at the forefront in the next election. I can tell you what: it is thumbs down for you, Minister. You just spent an 11th anniversary in this parliament on 24 March, but I can tell you that you will not have a 12th anniversary while you are in the ministry, because you will be copping it well and truly in the neck come Christmas. (Time expired)16:12:0026049Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—It gave me a great deal of pleasure to listen to the previous speaker because he made a couple of points that I think members opposite, especially the Leader of the Opposition, have been completely dancing around for months and months. He talked about how when this government came in we raised hopes and expectation. I can tell you that where I come from there was enormous scope for raising hopes and expectations when this government came in. The people where I come from were sick and tired of record unemployment, sick and tired of record inflation and record government debt. There is no doubt that we raised hopes and expectations. Over the period, as we have met one challenge after another, people, quite rightly, have replaced those hopes and expectations with other hopes and expectations. I am proud to be part of the government that are still trying to deliver on what the people elected us to do. The previous speaker also said—and I congratulate him again for being honest, because it is something the opposition leader has not been coming out and saying—that the opposition do not have to do much to win the next election. That is precisely what the people where I come from are saying—they are saying that the opposition think that they can just sit back and say nothing and coast to victory at the next election. They believe they do not have to do much. They believe they do not have to do anything. There is no doubt—I think it is stating the obvious—that, if an election were held this week or next week, this government probably would not get back in. But in the next nine months, between now and then, the tide will flow in and out a couple of times. If I were a betting man, I would not be using the figures that we have today. I think the member for Banks realises that the tide will flow several times between now and the end of the year.The first speaker, the member for Dobell, was raving. We talk about ideological ravings—I think that is what he focused on. If the opposition want to be truly honest about the state of education, especially in New South Wales, which is where I am from, then the finger should be firmly pointed at the chests of Bob Carr and John Aquilina. Every federal government in the history of federation—certainly recently—has spent more money on private schools than on state schools, precisely because that is exactly what those schools are—we have state schools and non-government schools. When the opposition were in government, they spent more money on non-government schools. This government has spent more money on non-government schools simply because, roughly, state schools are funded about 85 per cent to 15 per cent by the state government, and non-government schools are basically the mirror image of that.Also, the member for Dobell trumpets about online universities. When the Leader of the Opposition first spruiked this a couple of months ago, the reaction in my electorate was, `Thank God we have the government we have now; at least they have put some money into upgrading telecommunications infrastructure in the bush, because an online university would be completely useless to anybody who lived in regional Australia if the Labor government was still in power.' Of course there is the opportunity to deliver education online. Strangely enough, most universities are already doing that. Certainly, Charles Sturt University, which is probably the premier regional university in Australia—BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr Kemp—Biggest in Australia.84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr St Clair—I don't know about that.834Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER—I hear some rumblings from my colleagues, but I say, without any fear of contradiction, that, in my part of the world, Charles Sturt University are the premier deliverer of university services to rural and regional Australia. They have been offering online education for several years. Recently, I visited orientation day at the university. One of the very senior members of the staff made exactly that point. He said, `For God's sake, don't go down the Beazley path. We need face-to-face education and we need money to be spent on telecommunications infrastructure.' That is what we stand for and that is what we have delivered since we have been in government. The people in my part of the world would have liked a few backflips when the opposition was in government. They would not have minded a backflip on interest rates or unemployment. They definitely would not have minded a backflip on government spending and government debt and they definitely would not have minded a backflip on fuel excise. They have what they wanted; they have the abolition of the indexation of fuel excise. But they would not have minded a backflip on some of those extra little jumps that had nothing to do with indexation.The opposition continually talk about making soft announcements. There is not one item that I can recall that the opposition have raised when they are pretending that they are formulating policy for the next election. I cannot recall any costing that they have combined with any of their policy. I think this is very wise because they have shown that they have absolutely no financial control, no fiscal control when it comes to running a government. Every time they need more money, they whack up personal income tax and they spend the money. They need more money; they whack up excise on fuel. They need more money; they borrow it. They need more money; they sell a bit of infrastructure and spend that. They would spend every single dollar, and some, that they are able to raise. It is no wonder they are staying away from costings on any of their policies.As I mentioned, there is an overwhelming responsibility for state governments to fund state schools. On the day that has been mentioned several times here, Public Education Day, I had the great pleasure to host a meeting in my office with about a dozen teachers and a member of the AEU. Personally, I do not have anything against the union movement. In fact, representing as I do the city of Broken Hill, I know that the union movement has delivered an enormous amount to the workers, especially in the mining industry, in Broken Hill. Out of the 12 people who came to my office, 11 were teachers. The 11 teachers were obviously genuinely concerned about the state of their students' education. The 12th person, who was the union representative, was not from Dubbo, not from the western region, but had flown down from Sydney. It is only a matter of time before the opposition take up this policy. She was absolutely categorical in her statement—84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr St Clair—Adamant.834Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER—perhaps, adamant—that non-government schools should receive zero funding. She did not even blink. The other teachers were not of the same ilk. I pointed out a couple of things to them because most of the figures they have have come from the opposition or from the teachers union. If we have a philosophical difference of opinion and that side say that no government funding should be provided to independent schools, there is nothing I am going to say that is going to change their opinion. What we have to look at are the true dollar amounts that are being contributed to school students in our electorates. At the local secondary high school in my electorate, total taxpayer contribution per student is $8,000 per year. A certain Christian school in the electorate, which I will not name, a moderately resourced independent school, receives total taxpayer funding of $4,185 per year—a bit over half. A mid-range coeducational boarding school near my electorate in Orange is provided a total taxpayer subsidy of $3,776 per student. One of the examples that is thrown up with gay abandon by the opposition is the King's School. Let us remind ourselves again: $8,000 a year total taxpayer contribution per student in a government secondary school. At the end of this four-year funding period, the King's School will receive $2,550 per student per year. From where I sit, I have no philosophical problem with the school. Those parents pay their taxes and contribute to the education of everyone else. If all the students in private schools were lumped onto the state school system, there would be total chaos.It is absolutely clear that Commonwealth government funding for New South Wales government schools has risen since 1996 by 33.1 per cent—$175.2 million. At the same time the New South Wales government has not even increased the rate of its funding to keep pace with the CPI. How can we possibly have an equitable schooling system, where there are two different types of government funding, if one government is not pulling its weight, if the New South Wales government does nothing, while the other government matches the expectations of their students and their parents and the taxpayers? 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The discussion has concluded.Bills26051S27826051Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the amendment made by the House in the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2001.Bills26051The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Remuneration Tribunal Amendment Bill 2000Bills26051R122426051Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.26051Bill (on motion by Dr Kemp)—by leave—read a third time.Business26051Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) agreed to:That the following orders of the day, government business, be retruned to the House for further consideration:Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000, andPetroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 2000Committees26051260512605116:25:0026051Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report entitled Report 380—Review of Auditor-General's reports, 1999-2000—Third Quarter.Ordered that the report be printed.16:25:0026051Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—by leave—The committee's report No. 380—Army Individual Readiness Notice, examination of the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program and management of Job Network contracts—is our review of Auditor-General's reports for the third quarter of 1999-2000. The committee held a public hearing on 6 October 2000 to discuss these ANAO reports with the relevant Commonwealth agencies. I will briefly discuss issues in each of the selected reports in turn.Audit Report No. 26 reviewed the Army Individual Readiness Notice, AIRN, which seeks to bring individual readiness components together into a single instruction and to establish a minimum level of individual readiness across Army. The audit found scope for improving the effectiveness of AIRN in achieving its then primary objective, namely, to ensure that all Army members could be deployed on operations within 30 days of notification.This report focuses on a number of issues arising from the audit report, including the development and implementation of AIRN, individual readiness components and Defence's response to ANAO's recommendations. The committee observed that the administrative processes put in place to support AIRN were not appropriately efficient or flexible. The initial AIRN implementation plan had been developed without an appreciation of the size of the task. The committee supports Army's proposed improvements to information systems support and visibility of personnel data, and is pleased that Army considers that the costing of AIRN is a priority of the review.In relation to individual readiness components, the audit trail found that only two of the six components appeared to have a direct relevance to ascertaining the ability of members to deploy. Army advised the committee that a number of amendments are to be made to the existing AIRN policy and all full-time and part-time personnel will be required to meet the new baseline AIRN requirement. The policy will be expanded to include individual readiness standards that are linked directly to unit readiness levels. The committee considers individual readiness is the basis for military preparedness. While the committee understands Army's requirement to have a system in place to ensure operational deployment of personnel in an appropriate time frame, it considers that Army's implementation of the former AIRN left a great deal to be desired. Army had not followed through on its own objective in that it did not have in place sufficient readiness component standards to give it assurance on the former AIRN standard of 30 days. The imprecision associated with readiness component standards and the absence of linkage to the primary AIRN objective created a fundamental difficulty in providing Army with the assurance it sought from the system on the deployability of personnel.The committee notes that Army had now agreed with the ANAO that AIRN can be enhanced through the process highlighted in recommendation No. 6 of the audit report and is undertaking the adjustment of some AIRN component standards. The committee noted that some of Army's responses to ANAO's recommendations had subsequently undergone a substantial change. In the past, the committee has not always been satisfied with the quality of Defence responses to audit reports or the follow-up of ANAO and JCPAA recommendations. While the committee is aware that Defence has recently made a number of positive changes to the way in which it now follows up recommendations, it wants Defence to give appropriate and detailed consideration to all the ANAO's recommendations at the time they are made. The committee considers that, if Defence intends to give further active consideration to a recommendation, it should state this explicitly in its response.The JCPAA has continued its efforts in encouraging an open and positive relationship with Defence. It is pleased that the ANAO report has been a useful document for Army. It has provided a positive stimulus for Army to re-evaluate AIRN's objectives, components and record keeping, and has driven a process aimed at establishing appropriate readiness requirements and associated costs. Although Army is reviewing AIRN, one area of particular concern to the committee is the apparent lack of adequate analysis being applied to what constitutes sufficient warning time in a conflict, what constitutes a sufficient level of readiness, and the cost implications of readiness sustainability. The committee has recommended accordingly.In the second report selected, the committee reviewed the audit of the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program, a program which gave $70.4 million to a total of 60 projects as part of the Centenary of Federation. The audit concluded that the assessment process was rigorous, transparent and well documented, and generally complied with the ANAO Better practice guide for the administration of grants. For the most part, there was an effective audit trail. However, there was room for improvement in the administration of the grants to ensure a clear audit trail for the selection of projects and the distribution of funds. The Auditor-General found that there was no evidence that any needs analysis had been conducted at a state or regional level or between the need for cultural and heritage projects prior to the introduction of the program. A needs analysis can provide a basis for the allocation of funds to proposed projects and this would be administratively transparent. The JCPAA supports a rigorous needs assessment process so program funds are well targeted. We therefore recommended in report No. 380 that the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts implement its draft guidelines for the administration of grants programs. These guidelines had been developed subsequent to the audit and had taken into consideration many of ANAO's recommendations. Another matter of concern to the JCPAA was the lack of public detail about the reasons behind successful selection for the grants or for failure to be selected. Although the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage had documented their reasons for grant decisions under the program, these reasons were not released publicly. While the release of this information is at the ministers' discretion, the ANAO considers that, because the expenditure of public funds is involved, the reasons for selecting successful projects should be made publicly available—or at least on request. The Auditor-General suggested that public perception and confidence in the openness of the decision making process were important. The committee agrees with the Auditor-General in urging that the reasons for successful grant applications should be made available to those involved. Applicants deserve transparent processes in this respect. In addition, the committee recommended that, after grant decisions are finalised, all applicants, successful or otherwise, should be notified of the decision as soon as possible in writing, advised of relevant appeal processes and provided with guidance for improving any subsequent applications.The department informed the committee that its new departmental draft Guidelines on the administration of grant programs—in line with the ANAO's Better practice guide—addressed the issue of early announcement of successful grant applications. In addition, the department determined that `the advice letter to applicants whose applications have been rejected should include information on how to appeal against the decision'. The committee is pleased with this outcome of applicants being advised as soon as possible after the ministerial or delegate decisions are made, and being shown how to appeal the decision made, if deemed necessary.The final ANAO report the committee reviewed in this quarter was Management of Job Network contracts, which audited the efficiency and effectiveness of the management of the first round of Job Network contracts. ANAO found that, on the whole, these contracts were managed in an efficient and effective manner by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. One area where further improvements could be made was in departmental communications on strategic issues with provider representatives and Centrelink officers. The Auditor-General found that these groups had not been brought together on a regular basis to consider proposed changes to the management of the Job Network program. It would also have been beneficial if these groups had had opportunities to discuss how to approach significant issues confronting the Job Network.The committee was pleased to note that, since the audit, senior officials from the department, Centrelink and other essential representatives meet every two months in the presence of the Minister for Employment Services to discuss matters of strategic and significant operational importance with respect to the management of Job Network. The committee agrees that this is a sensible arrangement, providing a forum where departmental representatives, Centrelink and Job Network providers can exchange views and consult about strategies to overcome problems that may arise. The committee believes that these regular meetings should help improve communication, especially on strategic issues, and assist in the smooth delivery of services to Job Network clients. The department will be able to inform Job Network providers of program variations, hear their reactions and take these into consideration before finalising and implementing any changes. The meeting of senior officials is a key to better implementation of change to the design of Job Network.The committee was informed by the department that it had taken into consideration all ANAO's recommendations in its development of the Job Network 2 contracts. These improvements should further ensure that contract management will be more efficient and result in more effective compliance monitoring of and a better risk management approach to the Job Network programs. In addition, the department has ensured that all Job Network contracts will provide the Auditor-General with access to the premises of Job Network providers and access to confidential information involved in contracts should ANAO request these as part of an audit. `Commercial-in-confidence' will no longer be a shield for Job Network contractors to shelter behind. The committee is pleased to note the department's implementation of the JCPAA's earlier recommendations on this issue of Auditor-General access to third party premises. Such access will doubtlessly facilitate the Auditor-General's audit responsibilities where third party contractors are involved. May I conclude by thanking, on behalf of the committee, the witnesses who contributed their time and expertise to the committee's review process. I am also indebted to my colleagues on the committee who have dedicated their time and effort to reviewing these Auditor-General's reports. As well, I would like to thank the members of the secretariat who were involved in the inquiries. I commend the report to the House.16:37:0026054Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—by leave—The tabling of the JCPAA report on the Auditor-General's examination of the Federation Cultural and Heritage Program offers a timely reminder of a significant abuse of public office by the Howard government prior to the 1998 election. With an election due this year, I would hope that the Prime Minister will take heed of the recommendations of the JCPAA and that this abuse will not be repeated. I recognise that that statement represents a triumph of hope over experience and that we can expect a succession of both gross and petty manipulations of the system by ministers in the Howard government in the lead-up to and during this year's federal election for no other purpose than to obtain political advantage.In the case of the Federation Cultural and Heritage Program, in 1998 the Howard government threw away the Auditor-General's best practice guide for grant programs and replaced it with their own best practice guide for electoral manipulation. The first thing that they ignored from the Auditor's best practice guide was the requirement to do a needs analysis before setting up a grant program. They had decided that there would be a pork barrel, that it would contain $70 million taken from the so-called Federation Fund and that it would be used for no greater purpose than the re-election of the Howard government. Any public benefit to be derived from the program would be incidental to providing some announcements and photo opportunities for Liberal-National Party incumbents during an election campaign. Certainly they sought applications and they promulgated criteria by which those applications would be assessed. They even got officials to grade those applications on a scale according to those criteria. But then ministers had a series of meetings with their private staff to decide which applications would be funded. As another departure, not just from best practice but from normal practice, they excluded officials from those decision making meetings—officials who could advise them and, most importantly, take notes of their deliberations that would have provided a proper audit trail of the decision making process.The outcome of those meetings was that 16 projects worth $14.5 million that had not been rated highly by the measured assessment against criteria were selected by ministers. In a cash limited program they obviously replaced projects that had fared better in the measured assessment. No working papers were retained from the private meetings of ministers and their staff. Two months later the ministers and their staff cobbled together a statement setting out the reasons for their decisions after they were reminded by the department that good practice required that the reasons for decisions should be documented. I suspect it was probably something other than a desire for good practice that had motivated them since good practice had already gone out the window and no contemporaneous notes had been retained.Since other ministers have lost their jobs for similar breaches of process and accountability when proper standards have been applied, they wanted to restore a semblance of process. The list of projects prepared by ministers was sent to the Prime Minister for approval. Before it emerged with his imprimatur on it, another four projects had been added by some inexplicable process. The Prime Minister approved the projects on 28 August. The election was called on 30 August. But that was not the end of the saga. The Auditor-General went into a great deal of statistical analysis, but at its simplest what occurred after that was that the projects that were going to benefit incumbent government members were announced during the election campaign and the projects which were likely to have any benefit to opposition members tended to be announced later. In fact, the percentage of approved projects announced pre-election in Labor held seats was 26.3 per cent and the percentage of approved projects announced pre-election in coalition seats was 70.3 per cent. Also, the government did not tell any of the unsuccessful applicants that they had been unsuccessful until after the election was over. They did that in the middle of October, a couple of weeks after the election. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit made a couple of recommendations in their report. The first one is:The committee recommends that the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts implement its draft guidelines for the administration of grant programs.I think that is a very sound recommendation, but of course they can only do that if their minister lets them. The second recommendation is:The Committee recommends that, after the making of grant decisions, all applicants, successful or otherwise, should be notified of the decision as soon as possible in writing, advised of relevant appeal processes and provided with guidance for improving subsequent applications.I do not think you have to read very far between the lines there to see that we thought that the way this program was administered was an enormous breach of process.16:43:0026055Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—by leave—The JCPAA's report 380 covers a number of important audits—the Federation Cultural and Heritage Program, Job Network outcomes and the Army Individual Readiness Notice. I believe that Auditor-General's reports are a major source of insight into the workings of government. Almost without exception, but I think it is important to say that there are occasional exceptions, they actually enhance the capacity of this parliament to secure government accountability. It is perhaps a pity that more time is not allocated in this House to the JCPAA's reviews of the Auditor-General's reports. A longer time to have a discussion of programs, their implementation and their effectiveness could stimulate more effective public debate on matters of substance, although having taken on board the member for Kingston's tone in his contribution I fear that I might be being a little idealistic. In the brief time available to me, I will focus on the Army Individual Readiness Notice. This is part of a substantial suite of reviews by the Auditor-General of the defence organisation—reviews that have made what I believe to be a very real contribution to the defence of Australia. The reports on JORN, defence health, food procurement, the Collins class submarine and the Army presence in the north come to mind. The examination of these reports has, on a number of occasions, led the JCPAA to have an additional inquiry in the belief that there were further things to be discovered and acted upon. JORN and the Collins class submarine inquiries are cases in point.The Army Individual Readiness Notice is essentially about ensuring that all Army members are at least at a level of readiness that allows them to be deployed on operations within 30 days. The notice is intended to increase the speed and effectiveness of Army mobilisation. The minimum standards of individual readiness cover six components: employment proficiency, physical fitness, medical fitness, dental fitness, personal weapons proficiency and individual availability. Essentially, the ANAO found that, with two possible exceptions, there was no direct relationship between the AIRN minimum standards and the capacity to achieve individual readiness to deploy for operations within 30 days. Perhaps the best way of illustrating this is with the AIRN requirement on personal weapons proficiency. This requires achieving a pass standard on the F88 Steyr rifle. Unfortunately, the ANAO found no evidence that an operational level of weapons proficiency had been defined. It was therefore not possible to determine whether achieving the AIRN standard would allow operational proficiency to be achieved within 30 days. The ANAO recommended that the Army review the AIRN components and establish operational levels of individual readiness for each component so that minimum or peacetime levels could be set that would allow the operational levels to be achieved in a specified notice period. This seemed to be an eminently sensible recommendation. Defence's initial response was that it did not agree. Subsequently, however, Army advised the committee that `there now appears to be a sound rationale for the linkage between the components of AIRN and unit readiness level'. It believes that AIRN can be enhanced through the process suggested in recommendation 6, and Army is undertaking the adjustment of some AIRN component standards. This has been pleasing to the committee, but the observation does need to be made that initial resistance is too often the response of the defence organisation to recommendations for reform and that subsequent changes of mind do need to be taken with a grain of salt, particularly after a whole series of defence deficiencies recorded by the Auditor-General's reports and pursued by the committee had been initially denied by Defence only to be accepted later. A pun is irresistible, but the fact is that there is a certain defensiveness about the defence culture that we can no longer afford as a nation. Hopefully this is now being overcome, but we will have to continue to watch this space.260562605616:47:0026056Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the 64th general report of the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—by leave—The 64th General Report has been prepared in accordance with section 16 of the Public Works Committee Act 1969. The report presents an overview of the work undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works during the calendar year 2000, to a total value of more than $550 million. While much of the report summarises the 13 inquiries completed by the committee in 2000, the committee has also seen fit to report to the parliament on a number of issues. They include the quality of evidence presented to the committee, independent audits of proposed works, consultation with all stakeholders and heritage matters.I would like to make three comments about the quality of evidence. Firstly, in terms of submissions presented by proponent agencies, the committee certainly experienced instances where submissions lacked sufficient detail. This led the committee to request additional information, which added to the time taken to consider the proposal. Secondly, in some cases the committee found submissions could be improved simply by using plain English rather than jargon and endless acronyms. Thirdly, of particular concern to the committee was evidence that was contradictory. Inconsistencies in evidence presented to the committee and evidence presented to Senate estimates committees caused frustration, wasted time and delays.Related to the quality of evidence is the justification for a proposed public work. The committee expects all proponent agencies to provide clear evidence and arguments to justify their respective proposals. Better submissions provide details of cost-benefit analyses, internal rates of return, independent audits and whole-of-life assessments of the proposed work. I make the observation that particularly Defence have begun to provide the committee with independent audits, and the committee has found that process very valuable indeed. In conclusion, I would like to record the committee's appreciation of the support provided by the secretariat, led by Trevor Rowe. Like most secretariats in the House of Representatives, the staff in the secretariat in fact support two committees. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the support that other areas in the parliament, such as the Parliamentary Library and the table offices in the Senate and the House of Representatives, give to both the committee and the secretariat. The end result is that the committee fulfils its duties as prescribed by the Public Works Committee Act. I commend the report to honourable members.260572605716:51:0026057Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I 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 to Parliament: Development of 95 residential apartments in Darwin.A Defence Housing Authority proposal to develop 90 apartments at 101 Carey Street in Darwin at a cost of $31 million was referred to the Public Works Committee on 2 September 1999. Following public hearings in Darwin and Canberra, the committee requested the Defence Housing Authority to redraft the original submission. The Defence Housing Authority reviewed the entire project and amended the scope of the proposal to 95 apartments at a revised cost of $27.5 million. These apartments will be housed in three adjacent tower blocks and will include parking and a recreational area. This proposal was resubmitted to the committee in April last year.In its report tabled on 11 October 2000 the Public Works Committee made a number of recommendations requiring that the Defence Housing Authority undertake further development of the proposal before reporting back to the committee. The Defence Housing Authority provided a detailed response to the committee, addressing each of its recommendations. The Public Works Committee has concluded that the parliament should not delay the Defence Housing Authority board of directors from its final consideration of the proposal and that the board of directors will accept responsibility for the success or otherwise of this work—and I want to stress that point.The Carey Street project is an element of the continuing effort of the Defence Housing Authority to meet the operational requirements of the Australian Defence Force in Darwin and reflects the need to replace older houses and provide wider client choice. The provision of apartment-style accommodation in the asset mix of the authority is desirable. For many service families the apartment style of accommodation is attractive, offering amenity advantages, minimal garden upkeep or maintenance and proximity to business centres offering spouse employment.In other major Australian cities the Defence Housing Authority provides its Defence clientele with housing choices which include detached residences, townhouses and apartments. For example, in Sydney, secure inner city apartments with recreational facilities are available. The Defence Housing Authority will allocate at least 62 of the proposed 95 apartments to Defence tenants. The remaining 33 apartments will be either retained by the builder or sold into the private market.In more detail, the project will include the construction of 95 apartments within three adjacent tower blocks; a recreational building with swimming pools and associated changing-toilet areas, barbecue areas and extensive breezeway areas; ancillary buildings such as services buildings, groundsman's store, refuse and apartment storage; car parking provision for occupants and visitors; and assorted site works, servicing and landscaping.The estimate cost of the proposal is $27.5 million at April 2000 figures. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in May, with completion of the works required by the end of this year to meet the December 2002 posting cycle of the Australian Defence Force. In this time the Carey Street development will benefit the depressed construction industry in Darwin. I would, on behalf of the government, like to thank the committee for its support. I commend the motion to the House. 16:55:0026058Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to this discussion about this report from the Public Works Committee. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration has pointed out, the purpose of this report is to provide approval for the building of 95 apartments, via the Defence Housing Authority, at Carey Street in Darwin. While I do not oppose the proposal—principally because of the last couple of sentences of the parliamentary secretary's contribution that the Carey Street development will benefit the depressed construction industry in Darwin—there are a number of questions which I think need to be put on the public record. The first is that the depressed state of the housing industry in Darwin needs to be publicly known. We need to understand that in trend terms residential unit building approvals declined by 70.5 per cent in the Northern Territory year on year to January. A significant factor in that has been the enactment of legislation for a new tax, the GST. It is no surprise, in Darwin in particular, that the construction industry is depressed.Whilst I understand the merit of this proposal to assist the construction industry, we need not to have our heads in the sand. We need to understand that the construction industry is in difficulty in Darwin in part, and I think principally, because of the government's new tax, the GST, because prior to the introduction of that tax it was made very clear to all and sundry that the construction industry would suffer. Indeed, I and others in the Northern Territory predicted that this would be the outcome. Sadly, it has come to fruition. I am sad about that because a large number of Territorians have lost their jobs. Indeed, there has been a net outflow of people from the Northern Territory over the last 12 months in terms of migration. The only reason that the population of the Northern Territory is in fact increasing is that of natural population increases. Given the nature of the Northern Territory, you would think it would be an attractive place to live. The problem we have got is that unemployment has risen by almost two per cent year on year, and a large number of our unemployment has occurred in the construction industry. So, because of the impact this will have on the construction industry, I am pleased to be able to support the proposal. There are, however, other issues which need to be comprehended. During the year 2000, property sales fell in Darwin by 30 per cent. Unit prices have dropped by 12.6 per cent in Darwin and Palmerston over the calendar year 2000. The average unit price for this development is $344,000. You do not have to be Einstein to work out that, with vacancy rates in this part of the residential housing market at around 15 per cent, you are making what is already an oversupplied market further oversupplied, and that will obviously have the potential to further force down prices.While I appreciate absolutely the rationale behind this proposal in providing additional choice to members of the Defence Force and their families and understand absolutely the view that apartment-style accommodation is attractive and provides amenity and maintenance advantages—obviously minimal garden upkeep and, in a place like Darwin, that can often be something we all want—and of course Carey Street is close to but not in the CBD, it is worth noting the contributions made to the public hearing in Darwin by a number of organisations, each of whom, in their own way, was critical of the proposals involved in this project but from a very different perspective. One organisation from which a number of people gave evidence was PLAN—the Planning Action Network. Some of the members of that organisation who gave evidence were Ms Margaret Clinch, Mr Robert Wesley-Smith and Mr Matt Coffey. They expressed reservations for a number of reasons. Ms Clinch pointed out that this organisation is a community group looking to improve the living environment in Darwin. They made a number of quite succinct points. The first point in their submission was that the tower accommodation is unsuitable. The second point they made was that the proposed development is in an inappropriate location as it is on a high bluff and has extensive views of Francis Bay. Mr Matt Coffey pointed out that it is only 130 metres to 160 metres away from the Perkins and Paspaley shipyards and that that may cause a potential problem environmentally, with noise and sandblasting. They also raised concerns about the high cost of the infrastructure and believed that this was a premature development. They were concerned about what they perceived to be a lack of consultation from the Defence Housing Authority. They gave substantial information about that position in their evidence. In that context, other people have a view—and I think it has some substance—that the planning authority in the Northern Territory is probably inadequate in its function. You may not know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that planning is the responsibility of the Northern Territory government. It is not something that is given to local government as it is in other places in Australia. So local government has a minimal role, in essence, in planning and regulation of building.Two interesting contributions—made by two people from business who come from a very different perspective—were critical of this development. The first was from Mr Dalton from the Property Council. He argued that there was no need for the work by DHA because the private sector could meet the requirements of the authority and that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the development and construction industry in Darwin, specifically on the general economy and on what is already an oversupplied market for apartments. This is the case. Only two or three weeks ago I was visiting a shopping centre in Casuarina and I came across an acquaintance of mine who is a developer and who used to employ 50 people. He currently has a completed development on his books which he cannot shift. He has land on which he wants to put another development subsequent to his being able to shift the first one. He cannot do it. I was told that he had laid off 30 of his staff because of the depressed state of the Northern Territory building sector. This flows on from the comments I made earlier about the impact of the GST on the Northern Territory economy.It is worth noting in passing—although in that context I am sure that the Northern Territory government, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister will not express much concern at this—that the Northern Territory government, via its Chief Minister, Denis Burke, is on the record as saying that the GST would be good for Territorians. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you are aware from your own electorate, the GST ain't good for Territorians and it certainly ain't good for people who work in the building industry. I am aware that people believe that they may get some substantial spin-offs in the construction industry as a result of the Darwin to Alice Springs railway finally getting off the ground, but I have to say that the expectations of the building industry in Darwin are that they will be minimal. Certainly in the short to medium term, there will be minimal impact upon their industry as a result of this quite important railway development.So I think that the concerns expressed by Mr Dalton reflect those which I have expressed about the economic impacts of this development on a depressed property market in Darwin. Whilst it may give some stimulus to the construction industry and provide obviously important work opportunities, its long-term economic benefit is yet to be assessed. I suspect that the DHA, the Northern Territory government or, indeed, this Commonwealth government have not actually reflected on the long-term economic benefits that might be involved in this exercise. If the observations made by the Property Council and other workers within the real estate industry are anything to go by, and given the past and recent experience, they can barely suffer further competition from the establishment of an extra 95 units. I wonder how the government rationalise that aspect of this proposal. Having said that, I also note that there were other contributions. One was from Jim Woodger, a major developer in the Territory who used to be a resident of the ACT and prominent sponsor of the Canberra Raiders. He argued quite coherently—although it is not a view I necessarily support—that from his perspective this DHA development and the role of the DHA in Darwin is worrying, given that, historically, the DHA has gone to the private sector to develop its accommodation units. He asks the question as to why a government instrumentality is becoming a developer in its own right. I think that is a fair question. This development is not uncontroversial and it is something which we need to be conscious of.The major reason that I am supporting it—indeed, the only reason I am supporting it—is because of the very, very poor state of the construction industry in Darwin. I am concerned about the long-term economic impact of this on the local real estate industry and the negative impact it may have on other people in the private sector who are involved in developing similar types of amenity. I do, however, agree and accept that there is a need to provide appropriate accommodation choice for Defence Force families.While I am on the subject, I have at times been critical of the DHA, but I have to say that, over the years that I have been in the Northern Territory, the standard of Defence Force accommodation has improved quite markedly, principally because of the DHA, which was, of course, established under the previous government.17:09:0026060Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I do not intend to delay the House for any great period of time, but I would like to respond briefly to the comments made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory. He mentioned that the increase in the number of apartments as a result of this project is occurring in what he referred to as `an already oversupplied market'. I am advised that independent advice has indicated that, by the time this project is completed in December 2002, the market will be improving and that there may, in fact, be an undersupply. The member for the Northern Territory also referred to environmental concerns about this construction. I have been advised that, as far as the environmental issue is concerned, the Defence Housing Authority will comply with all of the local government requirements and that DHA is well aware of the concerns and will ensure that they are addressed. I gather that appropriate tests have been conducted and will continue to be undertaken during the construction phase. The member for the Northern Territory on balance supported this motion. He made a fairly long contribution and I could see that his enthusiasm waxed and waned. He principally supported it because of the boost it would give to the Northern Territory building industry. I just want to reiterate, so it is firmly enshrined in the parliamentary record, that the chairman of the Public Works Committee on the 6 March tabled a report in the parliament—Defence Housing Authority: Responses to recommendations in the tenth report of 2000, Development of 90 apartments in Darwin—which concluded that the final responsibility for the project rested with the Defence Housing Authority board of directors and that the parliament should not delay the board from its final consideration of the process. This expediency motion will complete that process. On 23 March the board of the DHA resolved that finalisation of the project will proceed. In conclusion, I want to stress that the board of directors of the Defence Housing Authority will accept responsibility for the success or otherwise of this work. I commend the motion, on that basis, to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative. 2606010000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip and the Government Whip that they have nominated members to be members of certain committees. Motion (by Dr Stone)—by leave—agreed to:That:Mr Georgiou be appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration; Mr Cadman be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources; Mr Ronaldson be discharged from the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace Relations and that, in his place, Mr Cadman be appointed a member of the committee; Mr Somlyay be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and that, in his place, Mr Jull be appointed a member of the committee; Mr I.E. Macfarlane be discharged from the Library Committee and that, in his place, Mrs D.S. Vale be appointed a member of the committee; Mr Secker be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage; and Mr Schultz be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services.Bills26061R113526061Debate resumed.17:14:0026061McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—Before the interruption of the debate for question time I was saying that the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 was a response to a single case—the McBain decision—and that is always a bad way to make law. We are winding back human rights protections in response to a decision by one judge in that case. Indeed, it is unnecessary for us to consider the matter at this point because the High Court is hearing an appeal of the decision by Mr Justice Sunberg of the Federal Court in that case on 30 April or thereabouts. It is entirely premature.One wonders why the government have brought on the bill at this stage after the initial drama of trying to politicise the ALP conference. This bill was on the list of bills to be debated just about every week until the end of 2000. Then, for some reason, it evaporated. We then saw a string of election losses suffered by the government. This week we saw the treaties issue—the Convention on the Rights of the Child—cranked up in the Senate and we saw the sex discrimination bill brought in. Again, the government are playing high-risk strategy here. They are looking for scapegoats. They are trying to show their superiority and they are trying to enlist the support of those who would be inclined to support the One Nation element in the election. They are trying to enlist the support of that sort of ideology by looking for scapegoats. Between now and the election we are going to hear a constant assault on Aboriginals, refugees and homosexuals. That will be a mantra of this government—rather than leading the country and saying, `Look, you have to have your frameworks in place to deal with issues that affect minorities.' Rather than bringing Australians together and working out solutions to issues—in this case, assisted reproductive technology, with very complex moral and social issues—the government are simply winding back human rights.I asked the library to do a bit of research for me on the countries that had researched this area and adopted courses of action. The United Kingdom has considered the issue. Indeed, Canada had a royal commission. France has had several inquiries. All have taken action. Which of those countries have taken action by simply winding back human rights? None. Of course they have not wound back human rights, and why? Because it is futile. It does not address the issue on a national basis and, as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission said in its evidence to the Senate inquiry examining this bill, to wind back human rights itself is dangerous but to do it on a basis that is fragmented around the nation is absolutely crazy. To determine whether women have access to assisted reproductive technology in a nation as a result of their postcode is totally absurd and does not acknowledge the factors that you should rationally consider.I spoke earlier of the British model, for instance. I went through the sorts of things that they are compelled to consider under that model. These are rational things that we should consider. For example, the person seeking access to IVF treatment is considered. They consider their commitment, obviously, to having and bringing up a child or children; their ability to provide a stable and supportive environment for any child produced as a result of the treatment; their ages and likely future ability to look after and provide for the child's needs; their ability to meet the needs of any child or children who may be born as a result of treatment—multiple births would obviously be a factor when you are considering this technology—and any risk of harm to a child as a result of things such as inherited disorders. These are all logical things which we should be debating and considering. We should be conferring with Australians on the sorts of criteria that we as a nation want to apply, but we are not. We are simply looking at bashing a particular sector of society—namely, single women. If any person on the other side of the House can tell me what rights this bill creates for any child, I will listen. They cannot. This bill does not create any rights for any child. What it does is enable the state and territory governments to deprive certain people of very important rights. Those certain people just happen to be single women. Why is that important? Why is that crucial and something to be concerned about? Because we are all aware that, in the areas of family planning and female health, there are controversial issues and people have very strong views on how they should be resolved. But this bill does not even scratch the surface of how they should be resolved. It simply says, `Single women have no rights.' This is the first time in 26 years that a government of Australia has wound back human rights, and we are doing it now because an election is approaching. That is all we are talking about. There is no doubt about that. Quite frankly, women on the other side of the House should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. They should be disgusted at the situation that they have got themselves into.The other point that has been raised in this debate—and it is not fanciful—is this: once you start the process of winding back rights, because of the values of a male dominated parliament, where do you go? Do you go back to the days before 1983? We can remember that the banking and insurance industries had a policy that married women would not be employed. Indeed, towards the 1980s there was some liberalisation of their procedures and they would enable them to remain on as temporary employees after they were married, but only until they became pregnant—then they were out the door.A number of local councils prohibited married women being employed. Council mayors said that was because their policy was that women should be in the home. It was not all on the conservative side of politics. For instance, the Barrier Industrial Council at Broken Hill had similar views before 1983. Do we wind back human rights because of the value judgments of male dominated parliaments that there is a certain place for women? As soon as you start treading on that territory you start having your feet fall through but, worse than that, the rights of women, particularly in this case, are going to be rent asunder.What are we talking about? We are talking about very expensive procedures. The Senate committee report, for those who are interested, went through the difficulties of women becoming pregnant as a result of this treatment and the number of procedures required, at a cost of about $3,000 to $5,000 per cycle. Most couples try about eight of these procedures before they become pregnant. It is a tremendous cost. As the committee found, Medicare does not cover the cost of this procedure for single women. If a single woman wants to utilise this technology and go through the physical trauma, the mental anguish and the enormous expense of these procedures—we are not talking about a situation where someone is being frivolous—she must fund it herself. Certainly there has been no evidence presented to me or none revealed in the media or anywhere else that any of the 150 single women who have accessed this treatment during the last year have sought to claim social security benefits from the service. Because this legislation is fundamentally framed in the Sex Discrimination Act, we are not looking at these issues rationally.In summary, we have to be national leaders, bringing people together and putting in structures for a national framework for resolving complex moral and social issues. This government is not about that; it is about creating division. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House(1) condemns the Government for introducing a bill which is:(a) discriminatory and socially divisive;(b) a completely inadequate response to the complex ethical, social and economic issues involved in the development and use of assisted reproductive technologies; and(c) totally ignores other areas involving the care and upbringing of children where similar issues and principles are raised; and(2) calls on the Government to implement the strong and unanimous recommendations of the Australian Health Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council to establish a national framework to regulate the provision and development of assisted reproductive technology (ART) services which should include:(a) mechanisms to evaluate, assess and prioritise the provision of ART services, including providing necessary criteria to protect, as a primary consideration, the interests of children who may be born from the use of ART as well as the interests of donors and those persons seeking to use ART;(b) measures to ensure that any child born as a result of the use of ART is able to identify and locate his or her biological parents;(c) adequate facilities and resources for medical practitioners to obtain expert advice and guidance on the complex ethical, social and economic issues involved in the use of ART; and(d) procedures to monitor and review the use of ART to ensure that the benefits of ART to participants are balanced with the interests of society as a whole". (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the amendment seconded?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.17:24:0026063Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—The member for Barton, in his contribution to this debate, completely misunderstood the issues that led to the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 being before the House today and the issues considered in the McBain case. For a start, it has absolutely nothing to do with when the next election might be. He suggested that one reason for this bill being before the House is that the Attorney-General did not intervene in the McBain case when it was before the Federal Court. Is the member suggesting that the Attorney-General should have argued against an interpretation that both the Solicitor-General and the Chief General Counsel have advised is correct? This bill is not about correcting a judicial decision that the government believes to be wrong at law. Rather, it is about the government's view that the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 was never intended to prevent the states and territories legislating to restrict access to assisted reproductive technology services to women who are married or who are living in de facto relationships. The issue in the McBain case was one of inconsistency between a Commonwealth act and an act of a state. It is standard practice for Commonwealth attorneys-general not to intervene in cases regarding issues of inconsistency under section 109 of the Constitution in matters before a single judge. This is because the principles of inconsistency are well settled so that the issues in such cases usually revolve around questions of construction of state and Commonwealth legislation, rather than questions of constitutional principles. This was the situation in McBain. It is outrageous that the member for Barton should allege that the Attorney-General was negligent in his duty by not intervening in that case.In support of the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000, I believe that the member for Barton has been quite off the track. As I proceed with my contribution, it will become clear that I am concerned about the rights of the children of the procedures that the member for Barton says that the Commonwealth is taking away. It is not just a matter of the rights of single women but also what the rights of future children might be out of what is being suggested. This bill will amend the Sex Discrimination Act to allow states and territories to legislate to restrict access to any form of assisted reproductive technology services on the basis of marital status. It will have no impact on the wider operation of the act—none whatsoever. The bill aims to remedy a problem with the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act identified by the Federal Court in its decision in McBain v. the state of Victoria—a decision that I think surprised all of us, but a decision that is understandable. The court held that Victorian legislation restricting access to ART treatment to women who were married and living with their husband on a genuine domestic basis, or living with a man in a de facto relationship, was inconsistent with the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act and, as a direct consequence, was invalid under section 109 of the Constitution. It is the government's view that it was not contemplated that the Sex Discrimination Act would prevent states legislating to restrict access to ART procedures to women who are married or who are living with a man in a de facto relationship. The legislation is not intended to reflect on the efforts of the many single parents in Australia who do a terrific job raising children, often under difficult circumstances. Instead, it deals directly with the right of a child in our society to have the reasonable expectation of the care and affection of both a mother and a father. This has been a successful practice for thousands of years in every society, and the bottom line is that boys and girls need a loving mother and a loving father. There is significant research backing that view.The amendment will apply to state or territory legislation dealing with access to ART services, which are defined to mean technology that is used to assist in non-coital fertilisation. The main forms of ART include in vitro fertilisation, artificial insemination, and various transfer procedures. The majority committee report recognises the many complex questions of law and policy in this area, but the government does not believe that these can be reduced solely to a women's rights issue—the position taken by the member for Barton. Disappointingly, the general report of the committee appears to have misunderstood the purpose and context of the legislation. Of course the Commonwealth cannot expect to dictate that every child will be raised by both a mother and a father forever and would never presume to do so.Debate interrupted.Adjournment2606410000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 5.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.2606417:30:0026064Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I wish to raise something which makes me very angry, and I do so on behalf of constituents whose circumstances are exacerbated by a section of elite society behaving absolutely outrageously. In a new figure from the Australian Taxation Office which I have just obtained, since July 2000 over 80 barristers, all of them in New South Wales, have been prosecuted for non-lodgment of income tax returns. All 80 prosecutions have been successful. Whilst everyone is innocent until proven guilty, it has also been confirmed that some 500 barristers, all of them in New South Wales, owe the Australian Taxation Office some $50 million, with 120—a new subset of those figures—of those 500 barristers having debts in excess of $100,000 each to the Australian Taxation Office.So out there in barristerland of New South Wales there are hundreds of barristers who are systematically going along a pathway of income taxation non-lodgment and, through elements of serial bankruptcy, income tax non-payment. It has to be said that these are society's scum. They do know better. They are well aware of the law and have chosen to spit at the community as a whole by their conduct. The individuals involved should be directly named by the Australian Taxation Office, not to scare them into finally complying with the law but because the Tax Act requires that the Taxation Commissioner from time to time report to this parliament on the non-payment of income taxes—certainly where it is of this magnitude. The circumstances vary and I suppose there are always reasons why barristers have gone down this pathway of a process of bankruptcy. But, for barristers who are currently bankrupt, the median debt in the past 12 months based on the initial proof of debt is about $250,000. The highest debt is about $1.6 million. For barristers with creditors' petitions, the debts range from $150,000 to $1.7 million. For barristers with bankruptcy notices issued, the debts range from $100,000 to $1.8 million. For barristers with judgment debts, the debts range from $20,000 to $1 million. All those categories relate to barristers from the state of New South Wales.However, there is a second leg to this and it is surely the failure of the Bar Council in New South Wales to apply any peer group pressure to these well educated white collar, white wig criminals masquerading as honourable participants in our legal system. It is too cute to contemplate that the office bearers of all relevant legal professional organisations in and around New South Wales and across Australia have not been aware of this circumstance, which has now been published in a very comprehensive series of articles which were launched in the Sydney Morning Herald, initially on Monday, 26 February. I welcome the fact that the New South Wales state government and the federal government have now taken action, partly in response to the publication of those articles and other efforts. I welcome the task force that has been set up by the Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl Williams, in conjunction with the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Rod Kemp. Some action is taking place. This legal class of people known as New South Wales barristers have dragged their feet over the years over many aspects of reasonable reform. For example, little or no direct access to barristers remains an issue. Until quite recently no published list of barristers or their competence and specialisation was available, although that has in more recent times been rectified and that can be obtained on the web. In this country, Australia still has no uniform nationwide legal market for legal services amongst the various state jurisdictions.Let me say to the 2,157 barristers of New South Wales: you have now all been besmirched by this conduct—2,065 of you are actual members of the New South Wales Bar Association. I and many of my colleagues know that, sadly, one in four of you fall into the categories I detailed earlier. There is one way for you to clear your name and I invite the New South Wales Bar Council to publish an additional updated list of their membership with an extra column attached showing those who have lodged tax returns in at least one of the last two years or two of the last four years. The parliament of Australia has a right to be angry at the wholesale abuse of the income tax legislation by a group of people who certainly know a whole lot better. They deserve to be condemned. (Time expired)2606517:35:0026065Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—The parliamentary committee process is, I believe, one of the most valued areas of our process in parliament in this country. The Health is life report was tabled in this place on 5 June last year—almost 10 months ago. This particular report—a unanimous report—resulted from the work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs over 2½ years on a reference sent to the committee from the government. I believe that there is an accepted understanding that reports be responded to in three months, that is, that there is actually a government target of three months in which to reply to reports. There are 35 recommendations contained in this report. I believe it is absolutely unacceptable that almost 10 months after the tabling we have seen no response from government.It must be noted that there have been occasional announcements from this government, which we could interpret as reflective in some way of the needs of our indigenous communities in regard to their health and wellbeing. There has been money for PBS access, family violence, housing and infrastructure, and even some towards improving the nutrition of children in indigenous communities. But this is the very point I am making. The report was asked by this government to look at, amongst other things: a) ways to achieve effective Commonwealth co-ordination of the provision of health and related programs to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, with particular emphasis on the regulation, planning and delivery of such services;b) barriers to access to mainstream health services ... explore avenues to improve the capacity and quality of mainstream health service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the development of linkages between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and mainstream services;c) the need for improved education of medical practitioners, specialists, nurses and health workers ...d) the extent to which social and cultural factors and location, influence health, especially maternal and child health, diet, alcohol and tobacco consumption;That is part of the terms of reference of this very important inquiry. It was 2½ years of hard work, with a lot of financial commitment to the process and a unanimous report containing 35 recommendations. I ask the government: what use is there in making the occasional announcement, when we have not seen the formal response where these elements that I have been speaking to have been considered? What is the point of a $200,000 research grant to help reduce indigenous smoking? That was an announcement in November of last year. What was the point of announcing in February of this year $2 million towards a nutrition program for children? How on earth can $2 million in grants properly improve the nutrition of children in indigenous communities—there are three specific recommendations addressing supply, cost, education, transport problems, and so on in the chapter in the report relating to nutrition. It is more complicated than that. The minister has said in the past that, to be effective, the money had to be spent carefully and strategically. I could not agree more. But how about responding firstly to the Health is life report setting out the government's strategic plan for the health and wellbeing of indigenous Australians? This would be an excellent start, a great way of keeping faith with all of the individuals and the communities who contributed so much to this report. The thing I found most telling in the recommendations, and in the consideration of this report, was that the faults of the past are being repeated, that is, the adhockery and the public relations exercises, making announcements about indigenous health with no structural change and no consideration at all of the problems unearthed in this inquiry. I commend the Prime Minister for being so moved by the stories of petrol sniffing on the front page of the Australian, but I cannot condone the fact that he can respond emotionally and not strategically to such an important issue. What a way it would be to move forward on reconciliation, in a most fruitful way—by responding to this report in a proper fashion. Ten months is far too long. We need to see that response to this report quickly and surely so that those communities, and the public in general, know exactly what this government has in mind for indigenous health in this country.2606617:40:0026066Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—I rise tonight to talk about fringe electorates. To put this into context, we hear constantly in this place, and in the broader community, about issues concerning rural and regional Australia, and they are live issues and I accept that and I am not denigrating that or the people who live in rural and regional Australia or outback Australia. I have a fringe electorate—the largest metropolitan electorate in Victoria. It covers some 550 square kilometres, and includes Mount Dandenong and the Dandenong Ranges and some smaller broadacre areas and suburbs. We have the same problems as rural and regional Australia but no-one takes any account of us or pays us any attention because, statistically, we are called a metropolitan seat. I will briefly outline some of the issues. On the issue of doctors, dentists and other health professionals, there is a surgery in Belgrave that has been trying for five years to get a doctor but cannot get one. We have closed down surgeries in Gembrook and Cockatoo because we cannot get doctors. We do not have enough doctors in Emerald. It is a huge problem but the department will not consider us for rural subsidies or rural programs because we are considered to be a metropolitan electorate. The next issue is that of out of school hours care. I have little villages dotted through the hills, each of which is an integral community—each has its own church, its own school, its own post office and its own CFA, if nothing else—but they have extreme difficulty convincing the departments that after school hours care cannot be taken care of by one school in one community over another school in another community. Locums for doctors and other health professionals are not readily available and we have difficulty getting any replacements so it is no wonder we have trouble getting doctors. With respect to local telephone call zones, there are areas in my electorate where it requires a long-distance telephone call to call your neighbour. It is absolutely ludicrous. Telstra is finally doing a survey and we will see what happens with that. With aged care facilities, and particularly high care beds, the expectation is that people on the urban fringe will travel further and will go towards the city. That is wrong. There is a lack of facilities and activities for young people and this leads to petty crime, drugs and alcohol abuse—all common problems in fringe areas. Centrelink and government services over the last two decades have almost completely moved from our type of electorates to the inner city. Recently, I got lucky, and I got a new Centrelink office right in the geographic centre of my electorate, at Belgrave, and it was fantastic. But it was the first one in the over 11 years that I have served in this office. Public transport is almost non-existent on weekends and after hours. It is very difficult. We do not want superhighways through our hills and our beautiful forests, but what we do want is our local roads to be kept up to standard, with line marking that you can see on the roads and not painting bark that has fallen off the trees. We have an incredible problem with petrol prices with service stations in one suburb charging 10c or 15c a litre more than service stations in another. Another issue is general infrastructure. The Berwick campus of Monash University requires infrastructure; it cannot meet demand. It wants to grow, but it cannot. We have great primary schools and secondary schools. We have a wonderful district nursing system, we have tremendous community spirit, we have a leading Australian arts group, our environment is something we value highly and want to maintain and we have the fastest growing municipality in Victoria, in the city of Casey. All of these are fantastic advantages for us and all we ask of government departments is that they treat us as if we were not the centre of Melbourne.2606717:45:0026067Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—This evening I intend to speak on behalf of all exploited workers against unscrupulous employers. One particular case has been brought to my attention by a very brave woman. I preface this speech by acknowledging that this matter is currently before the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales, where my constituent is claiming that she was unfairly dismissed. What I will state to the House today are the facts as presented to me by Ms Ho. Ms Ho became an employee for Lynch Flowers on 19 March 1999. Her duties included putting flowers together to make bouquets and other like tasks. Basically, Lynch Flowers is a flower factory. The following claims are based upon a statutory declaration signed by Ms Ho at Cabramatta on 14 March 2001. According to Ms Ho, she had not had any trouble with management until around six months ago, when Ms Ho alleges to have been sexually harassed by a male worker. She informed management of the problem and believed the matter had been resolved. After that, she was subjected to intimidation for bringing forward her legitimate concern. Ms Ho was then made to work harder by her manager and he always complained about her quality of work. It should be noted that there were no problems with work performance before the sexual harassment complaint. On 1 December 2000, Ms Ho was given her first warning for not reaching the benchmark. She received her second warning for the same reason on 24 January 2001. Ms Ho claimed she did not know what the benchmark was. The warehouse manager then proceeded to shout at her and claimed that he could set the benchmark at whatever he liked. At this stage, Ms Ho decided to join the National Union of Workers. The union was due to meet the workers on 31 January 2001, but were obstructed by management. Ms Ho was threatened that afternoon with dismissal after this incident. Ms Ho at this time queried why the warehouse manager was smoking in a non-smoking area and why the employees were not receiving meal allowances when working overtime. At this point, Ms Ho's allocation of overtime was stopped.On 1 February 2001, the NUW met with employees and a number joined the union in secret, after being threatened by management that they would lose their jobs if they joined the union. On 23 February 2001, Ms Ho received her final warning and on 27 February her employment was terminated. Ms Ho is strongly of the opinion that she was harshly and unjustly treated. This situation is appalling. Approximately 97 per cent of the workers at Lynch Flowers are female and from a non-English speaking background—many originally from South-East Asia. These women would be unaware of their rights and would be prime targets for unscrupulous employers. Other claims of mistreatment include not allowing the women to have bottles of water beside them while they are working, let alone have drink breaks during the middle of summer. If anyone has been to Flemington Markets in summer, they know how hot it can get. The women are even threatened not to take toilet breaks as that would reduce their chances of reaching the benchmark and thus place their employment in jeopardy.The most horrifying allegation stated to me was that five pregnant women were told that the company would not be responsible if they suffered miscarriages. What sort of threat is that? If this allegation is founded, it will demonstrate that this company is run by nothing other than beasts. These men are absolute brutes and deserve public vilification for their actions. This sweatshop environment has been aided and abetted by a system that no longer respects the rights of workers. The Ho case, I am certain, is not the only example of diabolical employer behaviour—I am sure we could talk all day about similar cases.A century ago our forefathers created the `workers' paradise'. Australia led the world in the improvement of working conditions and the establishment of workers' rights. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was established to institutionalise these rights. As a member of parliament, it is my duty to speak up about human rights abuses. I have spoken about human rights abuses in Vietnam; never would I have imagined I would be condemning fellow Australians for these same abuses. These women know all about being abused and living in a cycle of fear. They came to Australia to escape a generation of war and what do they get? Abuse here. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I did not interrupt the member for Fowler because she is a relatively new member of the House of Representatives, but she did indicate that the case she was referring to is currently before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which meant that I was listening closely to see that none of the sub judice conventions of the House were in any way contravened. I do not believe that occurred, so I do not believe what she said could be used to influence a judge in any decision he might make since I think it would have been presented in evidence anyway, but I make that comment to her for her future reference. When she is planning to raise a case, it is wiser to raise one that is not currently being considered by a commission. 83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—I thank you, Mr Speaker. I did seek guidance prior to writing this speech.2606917:51:0026069Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—Senior Australians are the foundation and strength of our society. Their years of wisdom and contribution to their communities are a valuable asset to this nation. It was an absolute pleasure to read the nomination forms for the seniors in my electorate of Riverina. The roles they have played in their respective communities could certainly be known as the mortar between the bricks of our society. I refer to people such as Coral Smith of Whitton. Coral's involvement with the Whitton Historical Society museum goes back a quarter of a century. Her contribution has been motivated by deep respect and concern for our cultural and historical past. This has manifested itself most publicly as the on-call and enthusiastic guide and attendant available for the many visitors to the site. Mrs Smith has continuously raised funds for the museum. She works at maintaining the extensive grounds and gardens and carries out practical work in helping to maintain the fabric and appearance of the buildings. It is her unstinting generosity in contributing to the Whitton museum that commands our respect. Mrs Smith is a preserver and promoter of cultural and historical heritage.Gordon Jones of Matong has been a community minded person giving freely of his time and energy to a host of projects such as the P&C and the football club. He has worked tirelessly for the Ganmain Agricultural Show Society, having spent two terms as president. As an inaugural member of the Ganmain Historical Society aiming to keep Ganmain's historical past in the district, many hours are spent on the upkeep of the premises and restoration of old engines and tractors. Gordon is also involved in the township of Matong, being on the committees of the local rural fire service, hall and Landcare. He is a staunch supporter of the Matong football club. His special effort in 1999 was his work for the celebrations of the Matong School centenary. Gordon is currently holding the position of President of the Matong committee of the Radiotherapy Cancer Centre appeal. He is devoted to his work in running a successful farm, yet has time to give to the community, fiercely supporting local business in an effort to keep his towns alive.Peg Roberts of Coolamon has been involved in many things in Coolamon, including as Secretary of the Coolamon Senior Citizens organisation. Peg has been a great ambassador for the Coolamon Senior Citizens and is always ready to represent the organisation at functions such as Lions Club handover dinners, Rotary handovers, public meetings, et cetera. Peg was always very active in youth organisations and sports organisations in the town and in concerts and other functions put on during the war years and in subsequent years for charitable purposes. Peg has had a great involvement with her church and has been a regular churchgoer. She has had involvement with the Coolamon Heritage and Advancement Society, the current radiotherapy appeal and Meals on Wheels. She is a regular visitor to residents of Allawah Lodge and to patients in the local hospital. She is always ready to participate in selling raffle tickets for local charities. Several years ago she was faced with cancer but did not let that deter her from her busy life.Gordon Mowbray of Wagga Wagga is a church elder, past president and secretary of the Wagga Men's Probus Club, lecturer at the School for Seniors, President of the Wagga branch of Better Hearing Australia, and a volunteer worker for Court Support and the Smith Family. Gordon is an outstanding role model for all seniors, especially those with hearing difficulties. With Better Hearing Australia, he teaches lip-reading, makes referrals to appropriate health authorities, publicises aids for the deaf and gives lectures in identifying problems suffered by the hearing impaired. His refusal to allow such impairment to overcome him is illustrated in the many areas to which he contributes in a quiet, unobtrusive manner devoid of fuss. Jean Magennis of Wagga Wagga is a disabled athlete in many sports. Jean has won 45 gold, silver and bronze medals competing overseas and in Australia. Her community involvement has included community transport, the Forest Centre and Disability Advocacy Network, and she carried the Olympic torch in Wagga Wagga. Jean visits schools and groups talking about her disability and the places she has visited. Her failing health does not stop her from helping the less fortunate.John Cosier is a founding member of the Kurrajong Waratah Industries Ltd. John was one of those who helped to erect the first buildings using second-hand bricks from the South Wagga School. Wagga Men's Probus Club, Riverina Gums Residents Association, the radiotherapy appeal and the Orchid Society are some of the many organisations for which John has worked tirelessly. As a coordinator of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards in Wagga, he received a ministerial appointment to the state body and saw a Kurrajong boy receive a gold award from the Duke of Edinburgh.2607017:56:0026070Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—On 7 December last year the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation presented its final report to parliament. That report is called Reconciliation: Australia's challenge. Speaking on the presentation, Dr Evelyn Scott said:Reflecting on the current status of reconciliation ... I believe that the nine years of Council's work has made a difference in the life of this nation. The presentation of these documents was one of the greatest moments of my life. These documents provide us with a path to follow along which our individual and collective actions will help turn the vision of reconciliation into reality. The journey of reconciliation continues. Keep up your spirits and your good work. Thankyou for walking with us.But only yesterday, with the release of the Social Justice Report 2000, concern was expressed by Dr Jonas, the Social Justice Commissioner, at: ... the lack of progress in the reconciliation process and ... [the] range of commitment that needs to be made at the national level to achieve meaningful reconciliation. The theme of the social justice report is reconciliation and human rights. As is articulated in the report, the year 2000 saw some very stark contrasts. Although many Australians were walking for reconciliation throughout the nation, the government refused to overturn mandatory sentencing, refused to respond to the stolen generation, with the former Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs even saying there was no stolen generation, and refused to acknowledge or respond to CERD's observations that Australia's mandatory sentencing laws and native title legislation breach international conventions on the elimination of racial discrimination. The response of the Attorney-General and the minister to Dr Jonas's report and his criticisms of the government said:Our policies are well known. We stand by those policies.The government response just illustrates that the majority of Australians committed to reconciliation will maintain the rage and vote Labor at the next election. I would like to read a very poignant letter to the editor of and published in the Newcastle Herald on 23 March written by my constituent Shay Kelly:The life and times of Albert Namatjira should be on the school curriculum, as Nova Perris-Kneebone suggested recently at the Aboriginal Reconciliation forum in Canberra. Art is where Aboriginal people excel and Namatjira was the positive beginning for Aboriginal Australia. Our artists are recognised and appreciated worldwide, yet no art galleries of significance are named in any state in recognition of our contribution towards the artistic wealth of this country. Instead, I see an Australia-wide abuse of our Aboriginal languages when naming prisons and detention centres that deal with society's criminals: Tomago, Allawah, Junee, Mulawa, Woomera, Malabar, Kootinga, Jika Jika, Berrimah, Bandyup, Wooroloo, Numinbah and Borallon. Why prisons and not art galleries? It is a form of negative programming and now another generation is affected when I hear my 13- and 14-year-old nephew and niece saying, `We always thought the Worimi Children's Court was for Koori kids only.' Thank you, Shay, for helping us to open our eyes. Reconciliation will continue to move forward and when Labor wins the next election Prime Minister Beazley will apologise to the stolen generation for the past practices of previous governments which inflicted so much pain and suffering on so many Australians.2607117:59:0026071Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The Howard government announced today that it was selling Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and giving to the new owner the first option of building a second airport for Sydney. What the Howard government has done is to give the last rites to more than one million Sydney residents affected by horrendous aircraft noise from Sydney airport. This is the ultimate act of betrayal of the people of Sydney affected by aircraft noise. The fundamental question which must now be asked of the government before I leave this House tonight is: will the Howard government now legislate to require the prospective owner of Sydney airport to build a second airport for the people of Sydney?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 6 p.m., the debate is interrupted.17:52:0026071House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.2001-03-29—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members260722607209:40:0026072Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—Whilst the Balkans region of Europe is a long way from Australia, nonetheless many Australians, particularly in electorates like mine, have very strong family ties with that region and are deeply concerned when violence arises, this time in Macedonia. Amongst the Balkan States, Macedonia is important because it is a successful multi-ethnic democracy. It is a country that provided refuge to hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanian refugees in 1999 and cooperated with the Western powers in that war, at extremely high cost to its economy—a matter that I have referred to in the parliament previously.It is a country with a large Albanian minority which participates in the civic life of the country; indeed, a number of ministers in its present government are Albanian. It is vital that those who have been fighting under the banner of the so-called national liberation army do not galvanise significant support amongst Macedonia's Albanian community. Therefore, a measured response from Macedonia's security forces is necessary, as are further efforts to address grievances and to reassert respect for the rights of all of Macedonia's citizens.Also required is significant support from the international community for the economic development of the region. Indeed, a reasonable percentage of the costs incurred by the West in the 1999 war, contributed to economic development in the region, would be very welcome and would result in a dramatic improvement in lives in the region. It is also most important that Western countries cooperate in preventing Kosovo from being used as a staging post for attacks on Macedonia.We hope that the current flare-up in violence will die out promptly, as appears to be the case now. I understand the rebels have been rebuffed, not only by the Albanian political leadership in Macedonia but by people such as the Prime Minister of Albania and, indeed, by a number of leaders of the former KLA who presumably understand that these events are damaging to Kosovo Albanian interests. Indeed, the stability of Macedonia is vital for the security and development of the Balkans. A deteriorating situation there could produce terrible scenarios that drag a number of countries in the region into conflict. We have seen evidence of that in the last century, in terrible circumstances.Australia is a long way from this region, but our government should be using its influence to encourage peaceful resolution of the sources of tension and ought to be encouraging substantial investment of Western resources through our influence with a range of countries that have a more direct interest not only in the security of the region but also, most importantly, in the economic development of the region. I believe this is an important issue to which our government needs to give attention.2607209:43:0026072Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—Senior Australians are the foundation and strength of our society. Their years of wisdom and contribution to their communities are a valuable asset of this nation. It was an absolute pleasure to read the nomination forms of the seniors in my electorate of Riverina. The roles they have played in their respective communities could certainly be known as the mortar between the bricks of our society. I refer to people such as Ellie Lucas, of Coolamon. The people have benefited from Ellie's generosity as an organist and her involvement in musicals and drama societies, with the Wagga Wagga Eisteddfod, the church and school choirs. Ellie became involved in the World War II effort. She is a foundation member of the CWA younger set, and in 1939 joined the CWA day branch. Ellie has won the Land newspaper diamond jubilee award and was honoured with CWA life membership. She still plays the national anthem on the piano at meetings and other functions. Beryl Marcus of Griffith is a quiet achiever. Beryl joined the Yenda Innerwheel Club in 1959. Beryl has been international officer for many years. This lady works tirelessly for many things other than Innerwheel. She has been a staunch supporter of the Griffith Uniting Church. Pioneer Park is also very dear to Beryl, as her father, the late Charles Sharam, was the instigator in its inception. Meals on Wheels and the hospital kiosk have also been part of this busy lady's life.Mr Roy Wade from Narrandera has filled the position of secretary treasurer of the Euroley Bush Fire Brigade for 25 years. He has also served as a member of the Euroley Progress Association for 25 years. He was a foundation member of the Narrandera Parkside Museum Committee and a founding member of the Narrandera Camera Club, which had its beginnings 42 years ago. He is an active supporter of the Narrandera branch of the Cancer Patients Assistance Society.The Narrandera Show has benefited from Roy's participation as the photography steward for many years, and local festivals have been supported through Roy's assistance with organising exhibition and parade floats. Roy is a member of the Friends of Teloca House, Narrandera's aged care hostel, organising slide shows, talking to residents about his travels and fundraising to buy amenities for the residents. Narrandera school students also benefit from Roy's willingness to spend class time with them. A participating member of the Narrandera Koala Regeneration Committee, the Narrandera Arts Council, the Riverina Field Naturalists and the Narrandera Probus Club, Roy enjoys his life to the full. For many years May Cameron of Leeton has been a member of the Leeton branch of Soroptimists International, the Villa Aids at the Assumption Villa Retirement Village and the Leeton Floral Art Group. May's main claim to fame is that she has devoted much of her life working for the handicapped in our society. May has been a stalwart of the Leeton Branch of the Spastic Council since about 1971 and has been President of the Leeton Branch of the Spastic Council since 1987. The Leeton community has long recognised the outstanding work of May Cameron. In 1984, she was Leeton Citizen of the Year and in 1987 she was the Paul Harris Fellow.2607309:46:0026073Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I want to draw to the attention of the parliament the plight of small businesses operating in the smash repair industry. They are under extreme pressure because of the behaviour of large insurance companies combined with the operation of the GST. In fact, it has become impossible for many of these small smash repairers to pass on genuine cost increases which have resulted from material and labour cost increases.The very large fall in the value of the Australian dollar has meant that imported materials, paint and so on have increased in price very substantially and yet these small operators have had to absorb these increases. This is now operating in conjunction with the behaviour of the insurance companies. Insurance companies provide assessing centres to which in a lot of cases vehicles must be towed or driven in order for a claim to proceed. There are often clauses in insurance policies to force the insured to cooperate. The vehicles are then given to the cheapest repairer and, in most cases, with or without the consent or even the knowledge of the owners. I have had a complaint that the quality of repair of one insurer's repairers is generally very poor and virtually every major repairer in south-east Queensland refuses to work for them. The insurers are using approved repairer schemes to control the flow of work to the industry and this actually enables them to deny any work— A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 9.47 a.m. to 10.19 a.m.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded. Bills26074S290Consideration resumed from 5 March.2607410:19:0026074Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.One of the more exciting and ambitious projects—modern law reform projects—has been the development of the Model Criminal Code. Since 1996 model offences concerning a wide range of topics, including conspiracy to defraud, assault, stalking, abduction, sexual offences, homicide, perjury, threatening witnesses, drug trafficking, slavery and sexual servitude, the contamination of goods and computer offences have been developed following extensive nation-wide consultation.The Model Criminal Code discussion papers and reports contain a comprehensive review of the law on each topic in Australia and overseas. The work has come to the notice of the High Court of Australia and is now recognised throughout Australia and overseas as one of the more worthwhile contemporary law reform projects.All of these areas of criminal law deserve, and will benefit from, greater clarity and consistency across Australia, and the Model Criminal Code project is a vital step towards this goal. We have seen the benefits flowing from this project through the adoption by the states and territories of various components from the Model Criminal Code, thus giving Australians greater certainty, protection and confidence under the criminal law. We can anticipate that still greater benefits will flow as this project continues.At the Commonwealth level this project has seen the continuing development of the Criminal Code. When finalised, the Criminal Code will codify the most serious offences against Commonwealth law and establish a cohesive set of general principles of criminal responsibility. This represents a significant improvement on existing Commonwealth criminal law, where existing serious criminal offence provisions are scattered throughout the broad range of legislation and of which it cannot be said that they are created, or interpreted, in a consistent manner.An important step in the process of finalising the Criminal Code is to ensure that all offence-creating and related provisions throughout Commonwealth legislation are drafted in a manner that makes them work under the general principles established by the Criminal Code. While a majority of offences will operate as they always have without amendment, there are some which will require adjustment. It is important that all such amendments are made prior to the application of the principles of the Criminal Code to all offences against Commonwealth legislation on 15 December 2001 in order to ensure that there is a seamless transition.The purpose of this bill is to apply the Criminal Code to all offence-creating and related provisions in acts falling within the portfolio of the Attorney-General, and to make all necessary amendments to these provisions to ensure compliance and consistency with the general principles of the Criminal Code. The amendments will ensure that existing criminal offences and related provisions continue to operate in the same manner as at present after the application of the Criminal Code. The bill before the chamber will be one of a series designed to apply the Criminal Code on a portfolio-by-portfolio basis. A number of amendments to offence-creating and related provisions within the Attorney-General's portfolio have been identified as necessary. These amendments are made in the schedules to the bill.Significantly, this bill will remove duplications of the provisions of the Criminal Code. For example, there are a large number of offences of attempt scattered throughout Commonwealth legislation. The bill will repeal these superfluous provisions and instead place reliance on the provisions of the Criminal Code.An important component of the bill is to provide clarity about the application of strict liability or absolute liability to some offence-creating provisions. Under the Criminal Code an offence must specifically identify strict liability or absolute liability as the case may be, or the prosecution will be required to prove fault in relation to each element of the offence. This is necessary to ensure that the strict or absolute liability nature of some provisions is not lost in the transition to application of the general principles of the Criminal Code. If relevant offences are not adjusted in this manner many will become more difficult for the prosecution to prove, and therefore does not reduce the protection which was originally intended by the parliament to be provided to the community.This bill will similarly improve the efficient and fair prosecution of offences by clarifying the physical elements of offences and amending inappropriate fault elements. I anticipate that this measure alone will save many hundreds of hours of court time otherwise spent in complicated, and sometimes inconsistent, interpretation of offence-creating provisions. It follows that courts will enjoy significant savings in time, costs and resources as a result of the amendments.The Criminal Code is a significant step in the reform of our system of justice, and it is important that it be implemented in a way that is considered and pays careful regard to the way Commonwealth offence provisions are to work in practice. This bill is an important step in that process. I commend the bill to the Main Committee and present the explanatory memorandum.10:25:0026075Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration has indicated the nature of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001. This legislation is parallelled by similar packages which are being brought through the parliament in respect of all portfolio areas. By the time this process has been completed, the list of speeches on this subject is bound to become more than slightly boring. I will indicate simply that I commend the government for continuing with a process of reform. This process of seeking to ensure that the Commonwealth criminal law framework is consistent across all portfolios and operating in a way which is more coherent and more transparent to the community is an important one.The one area where the opposition has repeatedly called on the government to place greater effort has been to draw the states into this process of reform, because the initiative was intended to commence a process whereby not only would Commonwealth law be codified in a way which is more accessible and more transparent, but the principles of criminal law responsibility across the whole nation would be brought into coherent line. That process has died. There is little effort being put into energising it. It needs the concerted attention of both the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice and Customs, and I would think also the Prime Minister, if this process is to get back on track. It is an important process, one which the government continues to subscribe to in principle, but it will not get anywhere unless more than the current effort is devoted to that task. It should not be impossible now. Whilst this government no longer shares the political colour of a number of state governments, there is no real reason why partisanship should cloud this task. In fact, it should be easier in some ways, given the political similarities across some of the state jurisdictions now, to find common ground, particularly as some of the more truculent of governments that might have stood out—in Queensland and Western Australia—have been replaced by administrations which are likely to be more willing to consider the national interest than the previous administrations. With those few remarks, I commend the legislation to the Main Committee. 10:28:0026076Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—The member for Denison, characteristically, has not used all of the time at his disposal to comment on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001. That is a mark of his tendency, which I appreciate, to say only that which he regards as worth saying, rather than simply to occupy the time, and all members of the chamber would express their gratitude. It is not a practice that the member for Parramatta has frequently followed, in spite of the encouragement of the member for Bonython, but I may well be persuaded to do so on this occasion.The Model Criminal Code is clearly a substantial project. It is a reflection of the Western empiricist tradition that wants to reduce everything to uniformity and commonality, and finds any aberration or deviancy, anything that does not fit into neat categories, somehow an irritant. So we have a vast, substantial army of expert Commonwealth lawyers and draftsmen and draftswomen who are aiding us by producing a much more homogenised version of the criminal law.I certainly accept the parliamentary secretary's advice that this will improve the efficiency of the courts, reduce resources expended on litigation and provide greater certainty and security to Australian citizens. I prefer to argue about what should be regarded as criminal than argue about how we can homogenise this in a more sort of vanilla expression of the law. But I nonetheless recognise that today's bill represents a very substantial body of work by a large number of very committed servants of Her Majesty's government in Australia and I appreciate their efforts.This bill applies to those criminal offences which fall within the jurisdiction of the Attorney, and that is probably desirable since it is fair to say that he has been providing leadership in this project across all portfolios. But he has been preceded in introducing such a measure by the portfolios of Treasury, Environment and Heritage, and Veterans' Affairs. It is clearly desirable that each of the various portfolios of the Commonwealth should reflect the same approach towards the elements of criminality in whatever offences exist within those portfolio areas.There are a number of points at which the model code explicitly incorporates the principles of the common law, which I regard as an extremely desirable willingness on the part of the Commonwealth, where we pause to recognise the fact that, over the centuries of incremental growth in the common law, in the wisdom handed down from the breasts of the judges who sat on illustrious benches in the United Kingdom and Australia, there is something precious in that tradition and it ought to be preserved. We ought not to have that arrogance which says that we, at this moment in this generation, have the capacity to invent wisdom and that all of those who preceded us somehow lacked it. There is a pleasing humility about the legislation, particularly, for example, in the area of strict liability and absolute liability offences, where Mr Deputy Speaker will be aware that the common law provides defences to offences and, in relation to criminal law generally, an element which is present in criminal law offences is that there must be this intention; there must be the guilty mind; there must be the mens rea. There has been a tendency on the part of parliaments in Australia and elsewhere to make behaviour criminal, to attach the stigma of criminality, while removing this requirement that there actually be a moment of guilty intention on the part of the person or company committing the offence. The bill creates a presumption that, unless otherwise stated, there must be this presence of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence, there must be a mens rea, there must be a guilty state of mind, in order to found a criminal offence. I regard that as desirable. If we ask ourselves what the purpose of the criminal law is and if we seek to place it in a wider cultural context, that is an important question to ask today because clearly, in some parts of our community, the consensus behind the criminal law is fragmenting. We do not live in a Taliban style, monocultural community in which some elite at the top simply dictates to the rest of the nation what is offensive and what is not offensive. We live in a vibrant, relatively pluralistic, tolerant, democratic nation in which there is a contest for the establishment of shared values. This parliament is the emblem of that contest. I accept nonetheless that the criminal law represents a statement of those values of the community which we feel so strongly and intensely about that we are prepared to attach the stigma of criminality to those who offend against them. It plays this important role in the community as a snapshot of shared values. It is very important that we do not include offences in the criminal law which do not actually reflect that consensus. At the same time it is important that any offence against those values is included in the criminal law. If there is a kind of gulf between the expectations and values of the community and what they see reflected in the legislation that is passed, for example, by this parliament, especially relating to the stigma of criminality, that is the sort of gulf which causes a breakdown in democracy.I turn to a book which is not uncontroversial but which has, whatever its content, the merit of being beautifully written, by a former Lord of the Privy Council who addressed his mind to this question of what offences ought to attract this very great sanction and stigma—the equivalent of the Plymouth Brethren tradition of shunning. What ought we be prepared to attach this stigma to?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—What was his name?3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON—I will tell you in a moment, Parliamentary Secretary. He said:I return to the statement that I have already made that society means a community of ideas. Without shared ideas on politics, morals and ethics, no society can exist. Each one of us has ideas about what is good and what is evil. They cannot be kept private from the society in which we live. If men and women try to create a society in which there is no fundamental agreement about good and evil, they will fail. If, having based it on common agreement, the agreement goes, the society will also disintegrate. For society is not something that is kept together physically; it is held together by the invisible bonds of common thought. If the bonds were too far relaxed, the members would drift apart. A common morality is part of the bondage. The bondage is part of the price of society, and mankind, which needs society, must pay its price.Today we are, in part, paying our price for society. We are submitting ourselves to the law in the greatest tradition of Western society, which is the rule of law, in the passage of this model Criminal Code and its application to the portfolio of the Attorney-General.This is essentially a mechanical piece of legislation, in that it sets out at the start to say that the amendments are designed to enable the law to operate not in some new way, not in some revolutionary, different way, but `in the same manner as at present'. So it is not the intention to introduce a new offence; it is not the intention to question the presence of an existing offence. It is merely the sort of homogenising project which this government and the one that preceded it are particularly fond of. We must have the guts to address our minds to the deeper question of the underlying consensus on what ought and ought not to be criminal. Those sorts of questions as to what are the values that bind together a community are important questions for us to consider, debate and discuss in a forum such as this. It happens very seldom. It ought to happen more. Nonetheless, I commend the bill to the House. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Have you told us the name?3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON—The name of the author was Patrick Devlin.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The chair notes in passing that the member for Parramatta did not precisely emulate the example of the member for Denison in terms of brevity. I call the parliamentary secretary.10:40:0026078Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—in reply—In summing up this very substantial debate on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001, I will be briefer than the honourable member for Parramatta, maybe even approaching the unusual brevity of my colleague the honourable member for Denison. This bill is an important step in the process of finalising the Criminal Code to ensure that all offence creating and related provisions throughout the Commonwealth legislation are drafted in a manner which makes them work under the general principles established by the code. While a majority of offences will operate as they always have, without amendment, there are some that will require adjustment. It is important that all such amendments are made prior to the application on 15 December 2001 of the principles of the Criminal Code to all offences against Commonwealth legislation in order to ensure that there is a seamless transition.The cooperation of all political groupings on important issues such as this is very important and desirable, and I am pleased to say that it is evident today. Listening carefully to the speech of the shadow minister for justice and customs, I regret that he finds this sort of legislation boring. But the government is thankful for his support and that of the opposition in relation to this matter.The contribution made by the honourable member for Parramatta was, as always, thought provoking, highly intellectual and well thought out. It was excellent for us to be given advice on the virtues of the criminal law and the values in our society which underpin it. I commend the member for Parramatta on his original approach to debating this bill and on making such a worthwhile contribution which will now be forever enshrined within the parliamentary Hansard of this place.The criminal code is a significant step in the reform of our system of justice. It is important that it be implemented in a way that is considered and pays careful regard to the way Commonwealth offence provisions are to work in practice, and this bill is an important step in that process. I thank honourable members for their support. I am hopeful that this bill will be unanimously backed by all members in this chamber.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Adjournment26078Motion (by Mr Slipper) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.2607810:43:0026078Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—At a time when the government is displaying great examples of policy disarray, there is yet another example we can turn our attention to: greenhouse policy. It is regretted that over the past few years, in the important discussions in the lead-up to Kyoto and post Kyoto, the government has not really taken a stance that could give credit to Australia's reputation in the past as a proud world leader in the environment. Regrettably, the Howard government appeared to do its level best at Kyoto to ensure that Australia was reduced to some environmental equivalent of an international pariah state. That being said, at least we were still in the Kyoto process. We went to The Hague and the government entered into discussions. Regrettably, the discussions at The Hague folded without any great resolution. The great concern that I flagged before the result of the American election became known was that if a Bush administration were to come in—which it has—the whole greenhouse agenda was going to be put into even more disarray by the attitudes of that administration. Certainly, in the few months that have preceded the inauguration of George W. Bush as the American President we have seen headlines such as `Bush dumps poll pledge on carbon emissions'. It is interesting to look at some of the commentary about that decision; it is indicated that there is some thought that Bush, in coming to that decision about an American form of backflip, was reacting to the $3.8 million that the coal industry contributed to his campaign. This illustrates the problem, which we can discuss at another time, of the way in which that form of support for election campaigns can have a deleterious effect on public policy.The real problem that we have this week is that the government is not making it clear where Australia stands on the Bush administration's backflip on Kyoto. In discussions with the European Union ambassadors, Ms Rice, on behalf of the administration, indicated to them that Kyoto was dead. Yesterday, the USA EPA administrator, Christine Whitman, said, `We have no interest in implementing that treaty.' That is a great disappointment. The Kyoto protocol, for all its imperfections, is at least a framework that the global community can use to ensure that the global community does attack the problem that is believed to occur in the atmosphere which causes the greenhouse effect. I understand that debate abounds that the scientific evidence about the greenhouse effect is not conclusive. But, certainly, if we do not take action now, we may regret this down the track. As the British Foreign Secretary at the time of Kyoto, Robin Cook, said, `Australia's grandchildren are just as affected by climate changes as everyone else's.' Contrary to the government's view, Australia is not on some other planet where none of this affects us. Part of the Bush administration's problem with the Kyoto process appears to be that it allows developing nations, such as India and China, to opt out and to be treated differently. But that has always been part of the process. When the government put out an issues paper on Australia and climate change negotiations, it indicated that the Kyoto framework talked about the problems for the economies of the developed nations, the problems for nations with emerging economies, and the problems for the developing countries. This framework acknowledged that. This framework is worthy of great support. It needs to be discussed in the same way that we were able to discuss reducing ozone depleting gases in a global effort. Of course, the ozone depleting gases were a phenomenon of developed countries because of their use in refrigeration and other processes, but the important thing was that, through collective international effort, we were able to achieve an outcome. Part of that outcome was to ensure that there was technological transfer to the developing countries of replacements for the ozone depleting gases. The same sort of things can happen under the Kyoto framework with greenhouse gases. This is an opportunity that Australia should not turn its back on just for the sake of being `all the way with George Dubya'. The foreign minister has got to understand that Minister Hill and the Prime Minister should say that they are wrong. (Time expired)2608010:48:0026080Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is my pleasure to refer to the very successful function that was held in my electorate on Tuesday of last week, which was the presentation of Australian Sports Medals to some very outstanding sportspeople in my electorate. First of those who received the medal in my electorate was none other than ET, as he is called locally and nationally—Andrew Ettingshausen. He is an outstanding athlete; he was captain of the Cronulla Sharks for a long period of time, one of their star players, and is a person who is not only outstanding on the football field has but also shown considerable leadership and outstanding citizenship by his demeanour and the way in which he handles himself. He is an outstanding person.Lionel Duncan has given over 25 years of service to Australian tennis, particularly through the New South Wales Hardcourt Tennis Association. He was very active in competition tennis from the 1960s until a few years ago. He still plays socially every Saturday and is devastated if play is called off due to rain. One of his friends reports that he does not call Lionel on rainy Saturdays for fear that Lionel will be in tears. Peter Hadfield holds the record as Australia's most successful decathlete, winning nine consecutive national titles. He also represented Australia in the Olympic Games—12th and 13th places in Moscow and Los Angeles respectively—and in the Commonwealth Games, when he won a silver medal in Edmonton, Canada, in 1978. He captained the Australian Athletics Team and the combined Oceania Team at the World Athletics Cups in Montreal in 1979 and in Rome in 1981. Since retirement from professional athletics, Peter has been a commentator on ABC radio.Peter Kerr was nominated in recognition of his service to Australian water polo as a player, referee and official at the highest level, culminating in the honour of being selected to read the officials oath at the Sydney Olympic Games. He also spends his weekends and some evenings during the week either coaching, refereeing or playing water polo. Peter was recently appointed to the six-member international doping panel of the world swimming body, FINA.In 1951 John Moodie formed the Evoca Cricket Club, which has won many competitions in the Sutherland Shire Cricket Association. Along with a committee, he helped to nurture local cricketing talent by forming the Sutherland Shire Boys Competition. Since 1950, John has been a committee member of the Sutherland Bowling Club and was its president in 1998-99. He is a life member of the bowling club and Sutherland Shire Junior Cricket Association. He stills maintains an active interest in local sports, particularly the Sharks.Bill Parsons is the head coach at the New South Wales Academy of Gymnastics. He goes to great lengths to bring out the best in gymnasts of all abilities. Our office has received correspondence from parents of disabled children who have been very grateful for the effort he has gone to to increase their children's confidence and performance. He is an outstanding trainer of gymnasts and holds appropriate awards.Stan Sheringham has served and been involved in Sutherland shire athletics as an athlete, official, coach and administrator for 61 years and is known as `Mr Sutherland Athletics'. He joined the St George District Athletic Club in 1940, which he represented as a middle and long distance competitor for nine years. Stan was a state junior medallist at this level but, unfortunately, contracted meningitis while serving in the Army—a condition which severely restricted his ability to compete.However, Stan maintained his heavy involvement with athletics, being part of the committee that formed the Sutherland Men's and Women's Amateur Athletics Club, which later became the first team from the Sutherland shire to win a Sydney first grade premiership. The club has gone from strength to strength, with Stan taking various positions on the executive and encouraging young members in particular to come on board. Greg Welch was widely regarded as the best all-round triathlete in the world and the only one to win in all divisions—iron man, olympic distance, world long distance, short course and world duathlon—in international competition. His career and ambitions for gold at the Sydney Olympics were cut short by his diagnosis with the rare condition ventricular tachycardia. However, he has continued his involvement in the sport through coaching, and the composed and good-natured way in which he contemplated his forced retirement is something of which all Australians can be proud.Finally, Neil Miller received a Commonwealth Recognition Award for over 50 years of service to surf clubs up and down the New South Wales coast. He was chief instructor at Coffs Harbour for many years, putting young lifesavers through their bronze medallions, and was a local branch delegate and vice-president there. Neil moved down to the shire from Coffs Harbour around 27 years ago and joined North Cronulla Surf Life Saving Club and from then on was especially involved in the Sydney branch of surf lifesaving. They are all worthy recipients of the sporting medals. (Time expired)2608110:53:0026081Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I would like to make a few general remarks about education in my electorate. I have visited a number of schools over the past few weeks and have formed the view that education in Western Sydney is alive and well. I congratulate teachers, parents and students on an excellent education system. That is not to say that there are not some black spots in the public education system, and I will address some of these shortly.I visited St Andrews College on their open day, and I attended the presentation of a Director-General's Award to Blacktown Girls High. Both those events were an outstanding success, and I congratulate both schools on their achievements. I presented the autobiography of Edmond Barton to Blacktown South Public School and Patrician Brothers Blacktown. I visited a local school, Mitchell High, where two of my own children completed their school education. To cap this off, a student from Wyndham College, Ehsan Fallahi, is attending the Youth Roundtable in Parliament House this week.As you would be aware, Public Education Day was celebrated on 15 March. In addition to visiting the schools that I have mentioned, I also spent time with representatives of the public education lobby group for the Greenway electorate—a principal, a teacher and a representative of the P&C. It was a fruitful discussion that covered a wide range of topics affecting public education.I make no secret and no apology for my support of public education. I believe that public education is the cornerstone of our society. Australia, as a multicultural and tolerant nation which believes in a fair go for all, is built upon the foundations provided in our public education system. While this government gives millions of taxpayers' dollars to the wealthiest private schools our public system is being starved of the funds that it needs for the most basic of services. Each public school in the Greenway electorate was asked to list just three items that they feel are the most pressing needs in their school. I seek leave to table their response and have it included with the Hansard record of this speech. I have conferred with the government members on this issue and I understand that there are no objections to that.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Leave is granted. As for your second point, I wonder whether you could let me see it, because it can only be included in Hansard if it meets the guidelines. If it is capable of being read, it cannot be included in Hansard. We will see what we can do. MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELD—I accept that. Members will be able to see from this list that the schools are not asking for the world. They are simply asking for basic items such as toilet and bubbler upgrades, a first aid/sick bay facility, a security system and airconditioning.It was pointed out that, even if some of these schools received airconditioning, they would have trouble turning it on because the power system would blow without an upgrade. Many of the schools have not been able to buy new books for their libraries in years. Those opposite may suggest that I am attacking my own state government on this issue, but I am not. I am calling on the federal government to give the state government sufficient money to cover the expenses it is incurring instead of penalising it with the enrolment benchmark adjustment, which would have to be one of the most pernicious policies invented by this minister.If the federal government can give $50 million to category 1 schools that already come complete with rifle ranges, climbing walls and swimming pools, then surely it can fund new bubblers and toilet facilities at the Blacktown West Public School. It could fund a power upgrade at the Meadows Public School, the Blacktown South Public School and the Lalor Park Public School that would allow them to use their computers effectively. The government could even find the money to fix the inadequate first aid/sick bay area at Shelley Public School or to give something as simple and basic as new chalk boards to Waters Road Public School. The list goes on. The money given to one category 1 school alone would go most of the way towards fixing most of the problems in this list.At the local level, I congratulate two local organisations—the Blacktown City Council and the Blacktown Advocate. They are jointly sponsoring an education supplement in the local paper. One of the schools that I visited on the Public Education Day, Mitchell High School, was featured in last week's edition of the Advocate. I would like to make a few comments about the school and start by congratulating the joint school captains, Salah Bahmad and Terri-Anne Stubbs on their success. I would also like to refer to a number of special programs conducted by Mitchell High School which emphasise the school's first-class education program. There are many pluses in the public education system. Unfortunately, time will not allow me to expand on them all. 2608210:58:0026082Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—There has been mixed reaction to the announcement that Bishop George Pell will be sent from Melbourne to take up the position of Archbishop of Sydney. Frankly, it is not my habit to provide running commentary on the decisions of the Roman Catholic Church. I am not a Roman Catholic. I claim no theological scholarship. As colleagues will attest, I am no example of virtue. Nonetheless, I feel obliged to make some comment and, in particular, give a word of welcome to Archbishop Pell. I note that the former Human Rights Commissioner, Chris Sidoti, has suggested that the bishop's appointment will take the church of Sydney back to the Middle Ages. Certainly, that would be a long journey, if it were possible, but it is not my view of Bishop Pell. One of the great recommendations of the appointment of George Pell as Archbishop of Sydney is that Parramatta will retain Bishop Kevin Manning in his leadership of the diocese. He and I disagree on some matters of foreign policy and government policy from time to time, but he is clearly a figure of enormous stature in our community and the appointment of Bishop Pell will allow us to keep the benefit of his leadership.I have only heard Bishop Pell speak once before. I have to tell you that, as a person who listens to a lot of speeches, as each of us in the chamber does, often coming out afterwards not feeling greatly edified, this was an occasion when I did feel greatly edified. It was a defence of, or an apologia for, Pope John Paul II. It was also a critique of the concept of leadership. George Pell spoke about the Pope's involvement in Poland before the collapse of the former Soviet Union. He talked about how the Pope remained a Polish nationalist in spite of being in the Holy See at Rome and how his leadership provided succour and nourishment to the forces of Polish nationalism and, in particular, to the resilience of the Catholic Church in Poland. Lech Walesa was leading the Solidarity movement, and he did so, taking an enormous risk and putting his own life in some jeopardy, with the knowledge that the most powerful figure in the Holy Roman Church was standing 100 per cent behind him. It was really the collapse of communism in Poland that historians and scholars will accept was the spark which ignited the implosion of communism throughout the Eastern bloc. Bishop Pell provided a definition of leadership that leadership involved those who, seeing a window of opportunity to do good, seized it. I think that was why he regarded Pope John Paul as a great leader. That was his admonition to the audience about the nature of leadership. It is one that I have reflected on, if not acted on as frequently as I would like, as a member of parliament. George Pell is criticised for having black-and-white views about things. I note his comment in the paper was that not everything in life is black, not everything is white; some things are grey, but some things are black-and-white and, where they are, we ought to be prepared to acknowledge that. I conclude by quoting a great scholar, Lord Devlin, on this subject. He said:Those who are dissatisfied with the present law often say that opponents of reform are swayed simply by disgust. If that is so, it is regrettable. But I do not think one can ignore disgust if it is deeply felt and not manufactured. Its presence is a good indication that the bounds of toleration are being reached. Not everything is to be tolerated. No society can do without intoleration, indignation and indisgust. They are the forces behind the moral law.I welcome Bishop Pell to Sydney.2608311:03:0026083Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I refer this morning to some very interesting recent media comments by the Deputy Prime Minister about regional development. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, yesterday convened a meeting in Parliament House on the role of regional universities in regional development. The two ministers said in their media release—and I quote:Universities and regional communities are to be commended for their commitment to regional development. Unfortunately, it is a shame that I cannot say the same about the Howard government this morning. Prior to the 1996 election, the government promised Australian voters that they were committed to regional development and promised to keep Labor's programs. That promise, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, proved to be yet another non-core promise. The government asked the National Commission of Audit to investigate what regional development programs should be continued. Of course, we all recall the National Commission of Audit. It was the Treasurer's razor gang—the justification used for sweeping budget cuts across a range of portfolio areas in 1996. The National Commission of Audit recommended that the government abolish all Commonwealth involvement in regional development; that Labor's commitment to developing our regions be abandoned; that Labor's programs on regional leadership, regional best practice and funding to facilitate better regional coordination also be abolished; and that these programs be replaced by nothing. The day the National and Liberal parties agreed to every one of the National Commission of Audit's recommendations was the day the government lost rural and regional Australia. A clear message has been sent to country people about the National Party. No longer was the National Party interested in standing up for country people. The National Party surrendered to the economic rationalism and the blind ideology of the Liberal Party, placing the agenda of privitisation and corporate interests ahead of people and communities in regional Australia. By abandoning regional development the National Party lost any claim it had to the right to represent country Australia. As I travel around the country I find that people have neither forgotten nor forgiven the National Party. People in regional Australia remember that the Howard government abolished the Office of Regional Development and then sacked 220 staff located around Australia; they remember that the Howard government has ended all of Labor's regional development programs—to be replaced with nothing—and they know that the reason the title of the department and the minister was changed from `regional development' to `regional services' was that the Howard government did not believe it had a role in regional development. At the time, the Howard government even declared with some pride, in the press release announcing the cuts, that there would be `no role for our national government in regional development'. For all of the five years since, the Howard government's rhetoric has repeated that statement. Never, unfortunately, unlike on a range other issues, has it made a backflip to say that it got it wrong. Never has the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the National Party, Mr Anderson, admitted that it was mistaken.In that context, I have just this to say: people in regional Australia will not be fooled by the comments of the Howard government about regional development in the lead-up to the federal election. The score is on the board. Having been ignored and forgotten for five years, people in regional Australia will not be sucked in by yet another policy backflip, because they have been calling out for five years for a government that is prepared to work with them and for them. Amid all those calls, the National Party has again gone missing in action.Unlike the government, Labor has always maintained that there should be strong national leadership on regional development. We have always maintained that regional universities should be major drivers of regional development and jobs. Six weeks ago, therefore, our leader, Kim Beazley, announced in Lismore that, under Labor, regional universities will be boosted through subsidised bandwidth capacity and the creation of 400 new fully funded post-graduate training places. Long ago we put the knowledge nation on the national agenda. Labor alone, despite being in opposition, has been focusing public attention on the importance of regional universities in regional development. Only Labor is committed to regional development and only Labor has placed regional universities at the forefront of that push.The Howard government is backing away from its stated policy position on regional development. If it is starting to understand that we need national leadership and regional development, then it must say so. But country people, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, are not mugs. If the government thinks that people do not remember the neglect of the past five years, it has something coming. I do not blame you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in view of the performance of your own party, for cutting and running at the next election. I would resign and walk away too. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I remind the honourable member that the chair has no party.2608411:08:0026084Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—In praising the Port Adelaide Football Club for winning their first AFL premiership, the Ansett Cup, earlier this week, to my regret I failed to mention the superb game played by Adam Kingsley, who was awarded the Michael Tuck Medal as the best player in the grand final, and the leadership skills of Matthew Primus, the Port Adelaide captain. Adam Kingsley came unheralded to Port Adelaide in 1997 from the Essendon Football Club. He has proved to be an integral part of any Port Adelaide success on the field, and that will certainly be the case in 2001. Along with all Port Adelaide supporters, I encourage Adam Kingsley to have his best season ever.Matthew Primus, the lion-hearted Port Adelaide ruckman, has been appointed captain in 2001. Already his leadership, on and off the field, has proved to be outstanding. He is a man who is big on courage, on leadership and on encouraging other players in and into the game. He is quite one of the outstanding big men in the AFL.Hopefully, the success gained in winning the Ansett Cup will encourage all the players and the administration to aim higher in their quest for success in the home and away season. It is interesting to note that the Port Adelaide Football Club has one of the longest histories in South Australia. It is the most successful Australian Rules football club; in fact, it is one of the most successful football clubs of any code anywhere in the world. It has won 36 premierships in the SANFL. It has been out of the finals in only a few years.Of course, stepping up to the AFL is a different league again. But for a club which was not given any favours when it first came into the league in 1997, having regard to the fact that some of the best players in the AFL originally came from Port Adelaide, it has done remarkably well. It has reached a milestone, having reached one premiership, but Port Adelaide supporters will look forward to the day when the club, successfully run on and off the field, will be a success in the AFL. I, for one, along with all people who live in Port Adelaide and right across South Australia—and we have supporters in every state—look forward to the day when Port Adelaide plays off in an AFL grand final. We look forward even further down the track to when it is successful.Main Committee adjourned at 11.11 a.m.Answers to Questions in Writing26086The following answers to questions were circulated:26086(Question No. 2058)205826086Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Treasurer upon notice, on 12 October 2000:(1) What assessment has the Government made of competitive federalism practices by the States and Territories, particularly the financial cost to the public sector of (a) taxation discounting designed to attract investment, (b) direct financial subsidies to the private sector, (c) subsidies on government business enterprise pricing and (d) local preference clauses in State and Territory tenders.(2) What adjustments in Commonwealth financial payments are made in response to the practices referred to in part (1).(3) What other Federal Government policies are designed to prevent investment bidding wars between the States and Territories.26086Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The then Industry Commission produced an information report, ie. one without recommendations, on State, Territory and Local Government Assistance to Industry. The final report was released on 23 February 1998. Given the nature and subject matter of the report, the Government did not provide a formal response.(2) This question has potential implications for two aspects of Commonwealth-State financial arrangements, namely National Competition Payments and the Commonwealth Grants Commission's methodology used in the distribution of GST revenue.States and Territories that do not adequately meet the commitments made under three intergovernmental National Competition Policy agreements in April 1995, may be negatively assessed by the National Competition Council, the independent assessor of each jurisdiction's reform progress. This may result in the Council recommending to the Commonwealth Treasurer that the level of competition payments made by the Commonwealth to that jurisdiction be reduced.The methodology used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in distributing GST revenue neither encourages nor discourages States and Territories to engage in practices referred to in Question 1. The Commission's financial benchmarks reflect an average of State and Territory policies and the Commission does not compensate a State or Territory if it chooses to forego tax or to assist private industry, at a greater cost to its budget than other States. This is because the Commission aims to measure States' relative needs for untied Commonwealth funding using indicators that are as policy-neutral as possible.The Commission has deliberately chosen not to assess needs in areas of government expenditure aimed at promoting private industry. It assumes that differences in State expenditures in these areas are matters of government policy choice. With regard to each practice listed, the Commission has provided the following detailed comments.(a) Taxation discounting — States with greater revenue bases achieved through lower than average taxes may receive a lower grant. This is because the Commission applies the average revenue effort to a State's base to estimate its capacity to raise revenues.(b) Direct financial subsidies to the private sector — these affect the average cost of providing services used in the Commission's calculations, but they have no direct effect on State grant shares.(c) Subsidies on government business enterprise pricing — the Commission assesses the cost of community service obligations using policy-neutral indicators of need, such as the number of concession holders, or cost structures in particular regions.(d) Local preference clauses in State and Territory tenders—these may increase the average costs of services used by the Commission in its calculations, but otherwise have no effect on grant shares.The Strategic Investment Co-ordinator process also has a bearing on the issue raised in Question 2. If a Commonwealth strategic investment incentive is considered for a project, Invest Australia ensures the quantum of project-specific assistance that might potentially be offered takes into consideration the availability of other assistance from the Commonwealth or State and Territory governments. The project proponent is required to provide details of any state and territory assistance whether financial or in kind. The proposal can then be assessed to determine what additional incentive might be necessary to attract the project to Australia. In essence, then, before a Commonwealth incentive is offered it is "adjusted" to reflect any existing government assistance. (3) The Commonwealth, States and Territories are signatories to the Operating Guidelines for Commonwealth, States and Territories on Investment Promotion, Attraction and Facilitation. The document is not a prescriptive agreement that prevents State and Territory Governments from attracting investment through industry policy measures. Rather, the document provides broad guidelines to help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of investment attraction activities. The Commonwealth and the State and Territory Governments will meet at least annually to review the effectiveness and efficiency of their respective efforts to promote Australia as a preferred investment location and the provision of investment facilitation services.More generally, the Commonwealth, States and Territories signed three intergovernmental National Competition Policy agreements in April 1995. The Competition Principles Agreement establishes a requirement to implement a policy of competitive neutrality for significant government business activities. Competitive neutrality policy requires that significant government business activities should not enjoy a net competitive advantage over public or private competitors simply as a result of their public ownership. This involves corporatisation or pricing of goods and services on a full cost allocation basis (including provision for tax or tax equivalent payments.)26087(Question No. 2213)221326087Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 December 2000: (1) With respect to the surplus achieved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in 1999-2000, what was the amount of increased revenue achieved from aviation fuel excise. (2) What increase in aviation fuel excise revenue does CASA expect in the current financial year as against the estimate of $54m collected on aviation fuel consumption for 2000-01.26087Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has advised the following:(1) The 1999-2000 Portfolio Budget Statement for the Transport and Regional Services portfolio included an estimated revenue of $46.688m for CASA from the aviation fuel excise, based on the available forecasts for aviation activity for the period. This estimate was revised to $48.688m in the 1999-2000 Portfolio Additional Estimates Statement. The actual revenue received by CASA in the 1999-2000 financial year from the fuel excise was $56.862m, with the increase due to the greater than forecast level of activity in the aviation industry.(2) The CASA revised revenue estimate for the collection of aviation fuel excise is $57.259m for 2000-01.26087(Question No. 2257)225726087Rudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd83TGriffithALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) What total costs have been incurred by the Commonwealth in its legal action against me before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court over the Brisbane Airport Corporation Master Plan.(2) What costs have been incurred for the engagement of (a) Queens Counsel and (b) Senior Counsel.(3) What is the costed-out value of solicitors used from the Australian Government Solicitor and elsewhere. (4) What other costs have been incurred.26088Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Total costs incurred by the Commonwealth in seeking a judicial review of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision (to extend the time in which Mr Rudd could seek a review of my decision to approve the Brisbane Airport Master Plan) are $37,441.22. This figure represents costs of Queen's Counsel, Junior Counsel, Australian Government Solicitor professional fees, disbursements and includes GST. No legal action has been brought against Mr Rudd by the Commonwealth in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. (2) Costs incurred for the engagement of Queens Counsel were $9,720.00 (includes GST). No Senior Counsel was engaged. (3) Costs incurred for engaging the Australian Government Solicitor were: $16,641.30 for professional fees; $2,769.81 for disbursements and $1,941.12 for GST. Departmental in-house running costs are not included in the above.(4) Other costs incurred in seeking a judicial review were $6,368.99 (includes GST) for a junior counsel.26088(Question No. 2260)226026088Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:Further to the answer to question No. 1992 (Hansard, 7 December 2000, page 20814), in discussions with Australian Transport and Energy Corridor Limited about the proposal to build an inland railway between Melbourne and Brisbane and beyond, has the Governments view been that support for the railway would be on the basis of no cost to Government or on the basis of no net cost to Government.26088Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Government has supported the development of this proposal through a $300,000 contribution towards the pre-feasibility study and a $30,000 contribution to a market study exploring an extension of the proposed Melbourne-Brisbane inland railway line, from Toowoomba to Emerald and Gladstone. In due course the Government may consider what is necessary to facilitate and further support this proposal.26088(Question No. 2262)226226088Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Has his attention been drawn to the detention by the San Francisco Coast Guard in October 2000 of the oil tanker Neptune Dorado, with 30 safety and environment faults.(2) Had the vessel sailed from Australia; if so, (a) when did it leave Australia and who (b) operated and (c) chartered the vessel.(3) How long had the vessel been operating in Australian waters and under which flag was it operating.(4) Has this vessel ever been issued with a Single or Continuing Voyage Permit by his Department; if so, when.(5) Did the Australian Maritime Safety Authority conduct any inspections of the vessel; if so, (a) how many, (b) when and (c) were any safety breaches discovered.(6) Has his attention been drawn to an oil spill on the deck of the tanker Humbolt Current in Melbourne; if so, (a) when did it occur, (b) what sum did the clean up cost, (c) were the costs recouped and (d) were any charges laid.(7) Under which country is the Humbolt Current flagged.(8) Has that vessel ever been issued with a Single or Continuing Voyage Permit by his Department, if so, when. 26089Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) Yes.(a) Neptune Dorado loaded petroleum product at an offshore facility located in Australian waters and sailed for San Francisco on 20 August 2000.(b) Neptune Dorado was operated by Polembros Shipping.(c) The charterer of the Neptune Dorado for this voyage was Tosco, a petroleum refining company located in the USA.(3) Neptune Dorado is a Singaporean flag tanker. On this voyage, it sailed from an overseas location to the offshore facility in Australian waters and then to San Francisco with the cargo of petroleum product. It did not visit any Australian ports during the voyage from the overseas location to the offshore facility or during the voyage to San Francisco.(4) Yes. A single voyage permit was issued to the Neptune Dorado on 23 May 1994, and was valid for the voyage between Geelong and Sydney. It allowed the ship to carry domestic cargo between these nominated Australian ports.(5) Yes. (a) Three port State control inspections.(b) September 1992, May 1994 and April 1995.(c) Each inspection identified safety deficiencies. Following the inspection in September 1992, the ship was detained until serious safety deficiencies were rectified.(6) No.(7) Humbolt Current is registered in St Vincent and Grenadine.(8) Yes. A single voyage permit was issued to the Humbolt Current on 16 April 1997, and was valid for the voyage between Brisbane and Fremantle. It allowed the ship to carry domestic cargo between these nominated Australian ports.26089(Question No. 2265)226526089Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Has he received a copy of a report titled Critical Design Deficiencies, Malfunction and Accident Risk Assessment of the Kenworth Air Glide 200 Suspension from Dr A.G. McLean, Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Engineering, University of Wollongong.(2) Does Dr McLeans report identify critical design deficiencies with the Kenworth Air Glide 200 suspension systems and recommend the recall and modification of this suspension system.(3) Has Dr McLean identified the need for major improvements in the engineering analysis, risk assessment, approval and accreditation procedures for heavy vehicles.(4) What is his response to each of the issues raised. 26089Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes(2) No. Dr. McLean's paper describes the Kenworth Air Glide 200 suspension and makes a number of assertions about performance. Dr McLean recommends recall but substantiation of that recommendation is not contained within his paper.(3) No. Dr McLean discusses alternative approval and accreditation procedures for heavy vehicles. A need for major improvements in the engineering analysis, risk assessment, approval and accreditation procedures for heavy vehicles has not been substantiated.(4) I regard any concerns about transport safety very seriously.Dr McLean has made a number of assertions that he has not substantiated by objective evidence. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has undertaken a review of its statistical data but could find no evidence to substantiate the assertions in Dr McLean's paper.Officers of the Bureau met with Dr McLean and senior staff of the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Wollongong on 27 February 2001. No evidence to substantiate Dr McLean's assertions was provided.There is insufficient evidence to support a concern by government with the safety performance of the Kenworth Air Glide 200, or that current certification arrangements for heavy vehicles are inadequate.26090(Question No. 2266)226626090Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Further to his Media Release on 13 December 2000 regarding the Very High Speed Rail, will he make available all the financial analysis associated with the decision that the Speedrail Consortiums bid did not meet the no net cost to Government criterion.(2) What definition of no net cost to Government was applied to the assessment.(3) What sum would the Government have been prepared to contribute to make the Speedrail bid viable.(4) Did the statement say that the consideration of financing arrangements will include a preparedness of governments to make financial contributions to the project because clearly public investment would be essential to make the VHST vision a reality; if so, is the Government prepared to make financial contributions to the East Coast VHST network project.(5) If so, what terms or principles have been set to define the position of the Federal Government in the inter-governmental negotiations to establish the preparedness of governments to make a contribution to the project; if not, when will the Federal Government make a decision on its preparedness to contribute to the project.(6) Will the comprehensive scoping study proceed if any government on the East Coast is not prepared to financially contribute to the project or the scoping study.(7) Has he written to the NSW, Queensland, Victorian or ACT governments regarding an East Coast VHST project; if so (a) to whom has he written, (b) on what dates and (c) has he received any response to that correspondence.(8) Does the Federal Government have a preferred route for the proposed East Coast project; if so, what is the route.(9) Has the Federal Government given any commitments to the ACT Government that the East Coast VHST route would pass through Canberra; if so, (a) what are the details of the commitment and (b) when was it given.(10) Did the Government rely on any external consultant reports or studies or any submissions from any Department in making its assessment that passenger volumes in Australia are not sufficient to make high speed rail commercially viable without public subsidy; if so, will the reports or studies be made publicly available.(11) In relation to the first inter-governmental negotiations on the East Coast VHST project, (a) when and where will they be held, (b) who has been invited, (c) who is convening the meeting, (d) who is funding the negotiations and (e) will the minutes of those negotiations be made public.(12) Will the private sector, industry or community representatives be involved in the consideration of the East Coast VHST project; if so, when and who.(13) What timeframe has he set for the consideration of and decision on an East Coast VHST project and will an interim report be released at any point in the timeline; if so when.(14) Based on the information in the Speedrail consortias submission, how long does the Federal Government estimate it would take to construct an East Coast VHST link.26091Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. The financial analysis of the Speedrail proposal was part of a broader project evaluation and will not be made public.(2) The Project Brief and Invitation to for Detailed Submissions defined No Net Cost to Taxpayers in the following way: "The Governments will consider the direct and, if appropriate, the indirect financial impact on the taxpayers of matters including, but not limited to:(a) any share of project costs or receipts attributable to the Governments or Agencies;(b) any land related costs (including costs associated with native title claims) to be borne by Governments or Agencies including the proposed terms by which, if any, these will be repaid;(c) any costs associated with related infrastructure that will be borne by the Governments or Agencies including:(i) any required modifications to existing infrastructure (such as roads and public utilities);(ii) any required modifications to existing rail infrastructure not to be undertaken by the Successful Proponent (such as expansion of the electricity supply); and (iii) any required additional infrastructure such as carpark facilities);(d) any costs and benefits associated with effects on the existing Countrylink and/or CityRail services;(e) any costs and benefits associated with changes in future required capital works, to the extent these impact upon the Governments or Agencies;(f) incremental changes in local, State and Commonwealth Government revenues including local council rates, State and Commonwealth taxes, stamp duty and any assumed utilisation of the infrastructure borrowings tax rebate;(g) any costs and benefits associated with changes in the cost of maintaining existing rail infrastructure to the extent these impact on the Governments or Agencies;(h) any changes in railway access fees which ultimately impact upon the Government or Agencies;(i) internal transaction costs including tender process costs, EIS review, planning and approval costs, legislative costs and Rail Safety Act accreditation;(j) works already committed or considered necessary by the RAC/SRA in the future irrespective of the Project;(k) changes in the net cost of providing feeder transport infrastructure and/or services, to the extent these are payable by the Governments or Agencies;(l) residual value of the VHST to the Government or Agencies; and(m) any direct or indirect impacts of the VHST on taxpayers."(3) Not assessed.(4) Yes. The Government's position on financial contributions to an East Coast VHST network will be determined after consideration of the results of the Scoping Study announced on 13 December 2000. (5) See (4).(6) Yes. The purpose of the Scoping Study is to, among other things, determine what level and type of Government assistance would be required to develop and construct an East Coast VHST.(7) Yes. (a) The Victorian Minister for Infrastructure, the Queensland Minister for Transport, The New South Wales Minister for Transport and the ACT's Chief Minister. (b) 12 December 2000. (c) The Victorian Minister for Infrastructure responded on 22 December 2000; the ACT Chief Minister responded on 20 February 2001. (8) No.(9) No.(10) Yes. No, the patronage analysis of the Speedrail proposal was part of a broader project evaluation and will not be made public.(11)(a) to be determined. (b) Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, the ACT. (c) the Commonwealth (d) yet to be determined (e) No. (12) Yet to be determined.(13) Yet to be determined.(14) Yet to be determined.26092(Question No. 2268)226826092Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) What action was taken in 2000 by the National Rail Corporation to dispose of surplus railway wagons in an operational condition, including the destruction of wagon stock at Somerton, Vic.(2) Is there a chronic shortage of suitable rail wagons on the national network and could surplus wagons have been sold on the second hand market instead of cutting them up for a sum that may be less than one tenth of the value.(3) Is a second hand wagon worth up to $25,000 on the second hand market.26092Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) National Rail Corporation (NR) advises that no action was taken in 2000 by NR to dispose of operational wagons. NR undertook an examination of its wagon fleet and identified 103 wagons that had either structurally failed or were beyond their economic life. The wagons were stripped for maintenance spares (eg wheels, bogies, etc) and a contract let for the scrapping of the body of the wagons. Only a few of the wagon bodies remain to be scrapped.(2) The sale of surplus wagons is a matter for the Company's Board and management.(3) NR advises that the value of any second hand wagon would depend upon its condition and market demand.26092(Question No. 2270)227026092Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Has the network performance and investment audit being undertaken by the Australian Rail Track Corporation been completed; if not, when will it be completed.(2) What sum has the audit cost to date and if it is not complete, what is the expected cost of completing the audit.(3) Which program funded the audit.(4) Will the audit report be released in a draft or final format(5) When will the audit report be made public.26092Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. The audit is expected to be completed in April.(2) $490,000 has been paid to date. The total direct audit cost is expected to be in the region of $750,000. In addition, track managers and the Department of Transport and Regional Services are contributing resources to the audit which are uncosted and are being absorbed by those bodies.(3) Direct costs of the audit are being met from the $250m Interstate Rail Track Investment Program.(4) The audit report will be released in final format.(4) Release of the report is a matter for the ARTC which is undertaking the audit as a report to Transport Ministers. The ARTC has advised that the report will be released in the first half of the year following advance distribution to Australian Transport Council members and track managers.26092(Question No. 2271)227126093Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001: (1) When will the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway commence.(2) What has caused the delay with the commencement of the project.26093Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The start date for construction and reasons for delay with commencement of the project are matters for the AustralAsia Railway Corporation (AARC) (the agency set up by the Northern Territory and South Australia to oversee the project). The latest advice from AARC is that until a date for financial settlement is finalised it is unable to provide a firm date for when construction of the railway will commence.(2) AARC has advised that the delays with the commencement of the project have been caused by the complexity of the project and the performance of complex due diligence processes. AARC further advises that the most recent delay was caused by the withdrawal of one of the consortium's investors, the John Hancock Group.26093(Question No. 2272)227226093Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) What projects or programs have received funding in each year from the allocation of $250 million over four years by the Commonwealth Government for rail projects.(2) Has the full $250 million been allocated to particular projects or programs.(3) On which projects or programs that have received an allocation have works commenced and which projects or programs have been completed.(4) In relation to the projects that have not commenced, (a) what was the expected commencement date, (b) what is the cause of the project delay and (c) when will the projects (i) commence and (ii) be completed.(5) What sum of the $250 million allocated in each of the four years has been spent.26093Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (3) Upgrade of the Mainline Interstate Railway Track Programme funded projects: Project Name and LocationApproved Commonwealth Contribution ($m)Paid to Jan 2001($m)Project StatusPura Pura to Maroona re-railing and re-sleepering Victoria8.0007.728Commenced 1998/99Completed 1999/00Crossing Loops-Vic -SA22.50017.515Commenced 1998/99Expected Completion 2001/02Rail Rectification -Victoria10.3504.344Commenced 1999/00Expected Completion 2001/02Rail Upgrade Perth - Kalgoorlie -WA18.0000Commenced 2000/01Expected Completion 2001/02System Continuity Improvements -SA7.5005.058Commenced 1998/99Expected Completion 2001/01Fitting of Resilient Track Fastenings Melbourne to Albury -Vic14.00013.457Commenced 1999/00Expected Completion 2000/01Track UpgradeMelbourne to Wolseley -Vic10.5008.323Commenced 1998/99Expected Completion 2000/01Performance Audit of Interstate Track1.0000.490Commenced 2000/01Expected Completion 2000/01Total Funded Projects $91.850 millionTotal Payments to Date $59.215 million(includes 2 months of prepayment (Feb and March 2001) for approved projects) (2) Yes.(5) In relation to proposals in New South Wales that have not yet commenced, the expected commencement date is dependent upon negotiation of an appropriate access arrangement between New South Wales and the Australian Rail Track Corporation. The rail bypass of Wodonga has not commenced pending preparation of project plans and an environmental impact statement. Year Expenditure (Cash)1998/99$ 4.934m1999/00$49.642m2000/01 (to Jan 2001)$ 4.639m26094(Question No. 2274)227426094Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) What sum has the Commonwealth Government allocated to the dedicated freight line project through Sydney and what is the breakdown of how that allocation is to be spent. (2) What sum has been spent.(3) What proportion of the total cost of the project is the Commonwealth Government allocation.(4) Has the project commenced; if not, why not.26094Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) $124 million has been allocated, in principle, to alleviating congestion on the freight route through the Sydney metropolitan area. It is anticipated that the proposal will be undertaken with joint funding from the Commonwealth, NSW, and the private sector. The final composition of the proposal has not been determined.(3) and (4) The proposal has not commenced. Allocation of the funding is conditional upon appropriate access arrangements being negotiated between New South Wales and the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC). 26094(Question No. 2275)227526094Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) How many locomotives are owned by the National Rail Corporation and of these, how many are in use.(2) How many locomotives owned by the National Rail Corporation have not been used in the past 12 months.(3) Where are unused locomotives stored and at what cost per annum.(4) Did he investigate the options to lease or sell these assets; if not, why not.(5) What is the estimated value of these assets (a) at book value and (b) on the open market.26094Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) National Rail (NR) advises that it owns 176 locomotives of which approximately 150 are generally in active service.(2) NR advises that fourteen locomotives have not been used in the past 12 months.(3) NR advises that the majority of the 14 locomotives are stored in the Adelaide area and such cost information is confidential.(4) This is a matter for the management of the company. The shareholders of NR have determined that all assets of the company will be sold through the privatisation of the company. (5) NR is in the process of being sold, and such information is commercial in nature and is not available. 26095(Question No. 2306)230626095Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Is he able to say whether the introduction of high speed train services in Europe have led to European airline operators reducing or cutting regional airlines services that operate on the same routes as the new train services.(2) Is he able to say whether the introduction of high speed trains in Australia would reduce the demand for flights into and out of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport (KSA). (3) Is he able to say whether variants of the now cancelled high speed trains proposed between Sydney and Canberra run in France, Spain, England, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Switzerland and Italy and will soon be in operation in the United States and Korea.(4) Why has the Government withdrawn from the high speed train proposal.(5) Can he provide data showing that the building of a high speed train network would be more economically viable than encouraging the growth in air transport.(6) Can he provide data of the project price of import fuel and import aircraft costs for the next ten and twenty years and provide comparative costs of railway equipment.(7) Was part of the Speedrail proposal a plan to extend the line to Melbourne and eventually Brisbane.(8) If the Speedrail proposal had proceeded, would it have put 75% of Australians within 90 minutes travel time of a major city.(9) Would the projected number of jobs that would have been created during the construction of the Speedrail link have reached, or exceeded 15, 000.(10) Is travelling by train safer than travel by car or aircraft.(11) Is he aware of transport safety statistical comparisons between road, rail and aircraft; if so what are the names of those studies.(12) Is he aware that researchers in the US have found that travelling by train is 6800 times safer than travelling by road and that similar figures also apply for a comparison between air and train travel.(13) What measures will be put in place to promote the construction of a Very High Speed Train service between Sydney and Melbourne.(14) Is it a fact that (a) railway equipment is largely locally manufactured and (b) most aircraft are imported at high cost.(15) Is he able to say whether Speedrail had forecast a net economic benefit from the project of $5.3 billion measured in tax payments, new employment, savings on highway construction and reductions in pollution, highway fatalities and greenhouse emissions.26095Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) No.(3) The Department of Transport and Regional Services keeps a watching brief on international high speed train developments.(4) The Federal Government decided to terminate the Sydney-Canberra VHST tender process on the grounds that it was not convinced that the Speedrail consortium's bid met the no net cost to government criteria. As a substantial up front public subsidy would be required to make the project viable the proposal was not accepted.(5) No.(6) No.(7) No.(8) Speedrail claimed that it would. The Commonwealth did not evaluate this claim as it was not a tender evaluation criterion. (9) Speedrail claimed that it would. The Commonwealth did not evaluate this claim as it was not a tender evaluation criterion.(10) The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) is currently investigating statistical safety comparisons between transport modes and is expected to publish its findings in mid-2001.(11) See 10.(12) See 10.(13) On 13 December 2000 the Commonwealth announced it would enter into negotiations with the states and the ACT about a comprehensive scoping study to examine options for an east coast VHST network, linking Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, together with Canberra, major regional and coastal centres along the route. (14) (a) No (b) Yes(15) No, the economic analysis of the Speedrail proposal was part of a broader project evaluation and will not be made public.26096(Question No. 2315)231526096Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) In respect to the planned expansion of Bankstown Airport, will the movements of larger jets interfere with the air space management of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport (KSA); if so, will KSA aircraft safety be further compromised.(2) In the event that the environmental impact statement on the Bankstown Airport proposal shows it is not feasible to implement the Federal Cabinets proposal, will the Government revisit the site selection process for a major second Sydney airport.26096Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The proposed introduction of scheduled passenger services at Bankstown Airport raises a number of operational issues in relation to the future management of airspace in the Sydney basin. While some modifications to current airspace arrangements would be required, any future changes would ensure that the safety of aircraft operations was not compromised.(2) It is premature to speculate on the outcome of the environmental assessment of any upgrading proposal for Bankstown Airport.26096(Question No. 2317)231726096Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001Are only Australian pilots trained in the Precision Runway Monitoring (PRM) System operating at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport; if so, why are non-Australian Pilots not trained in PRM.26096Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Pilot training is a matter for individual airline companies.Airservices has advised that it has provided extensive training material to both national and international airline carriers on the PRM and that there is a high level of compliance with PRM operations at Sydney Airport from both national and international operators.26096(Question No. 2345)234526096Irwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin83ZFowlerALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 February 2001:(1) Will an environmental impact statement(EIS) be carried out into the proposed extension and introduction of scheduled passenger jet flights at Bankstown Airport. (2) Did the EIS for a Second Sydney Airport describe Bankstowns 450 000 movements in its peak year as approximately the full capacity of the airport.(3) What impact will the introduction of scheduled jet flights have on the more than 200 000 training flights each year from Bankstown.(4) How many additional training flights can be expected to be transferred to Hoxton Park airport which the Second Sydney Airport EIS describes as an overflow airport for Bankstown.(5) Will the restriction which limits the use of Hoxton Park to aircraft of less than 1350kg remain in place.(6) Will a private operator of Hoxton Park airport be required to provide a control tower if additional flights are to be permitted above the limit which has already been reached of 115 000 movements per year for an uncontrolled airport.(7) Will Camden airport be sold as part of the package which includes Bankstown and Hoxton Park airports.(8) Why has Camden airport not been suggested as taking up air traffic from Bankstown when the Second Sydney Airport EIS describes Camden as an overflow airport for Bankstown.(9) Is he able to say whether the Prime Minister has suggested that training flight overflow from Bankstown airport would be handled by Hoxton Park and Canberra airports and not Camden airport; if so, why.(10) How much of the Hoxton Park airport site is required for the construction of the Western Sydney Orbital Road.(11) What restrictions will the development of the Western Sydney Orbital Road place on expansion of Hoxton Park airport.(12) What runway upgrading and extension would be necessary at Bankstown airport for scheduled flights of Boeing 737 and 717 aircraft.(13) Will he release planned flight paths for scheduled passenger jet aircraft at Bankstown airport; if not, when will the proposed flight paths be released.(14) Have ANEC noise contour projections been prepared for scheduled jet aircraft operations at Bankstown airport; if so, when will they be released; if not, when will they be prepared and released.(15) What curfew restrictions currently apply to operations at Bankstown and Hoxton Park airports.(16) What curfew restrictions will apply to scheduled jet flights at Bankstown airport.(17) What community consultation process will take place before scheduled jet aircraft operations are planned to commence at Bankstown airport.26097Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Proposals for upgrading the facilities and operational aspects of Bankstown Airport will need to be considered against requirements of the Airports Act 1996 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (`EPBC Act').A proposal to build a new or significantly enlarged terminal or to extend a runway would trigger the Major Development Plan (MDP) requirements of the Airports Act. These requirements include a formal 90-day public consultation period and consideration of the proposal by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services.The EPBC Act requires that the advice of the Minister for the Environment must be sought and considered before an MDP, or plan for aviation airspace management involving aircraft operations with a significant impact on the environment, is approved or implemented. In forming his advice, the Minister for the Environment may require an environmental assessment in one of the forms set out in the EPBC Act.(2) Yes.(3) It is expected that the introduction of scheduled services at Bankstown Airport will result in some displacement of current general aviation activities including flying training. The extent of the displacement will be dependent on the number of scheduled services that will operate and their distribution throughout the day. (4) Specific arrangements for accommodating general aviation traffic that might be displaced from Bankstown Airport have yet to be determined.(5) Hoxton Park Airport is currently available for use by aircraft up to 5,700 kg Maximum Take Off Weight.(6) The provision and operation of control towers is currently the responsibility of Airservices Australia who also determine when control towers are required.(7) The Government announced that Camden Airport will be privatised under one company that would also operate Bankstown and Hoxton Park airports. Detailed implementation arrangements are still to be considered by the Government.(8) See answer to (4).(9) No.(10) The Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Western Sydney Orbital identifies an area of six hectares on the western side of Hoxton Park Airport (about seven per cent of the total area of the airport site) as being within the corridor acquisition boundary for the Western Sydney Orbital.(11) The location of the Western Sydney Orbital is not expected to be a significant factor in determining the future of aircraft operations at Hoxton Park Airport.(12) The runway would need to be strengthened and lengthened to about 2,000 metres to accommodate operations by these aircraft.Firm proposals for flight paths for jet aircraft operations at Bankstown would need to be established when there is a specific proposal to introduce such aircraft by an airline operator. The timing for introduction of scheduled jet aircraft services would be a commercial matter for an airline.Alternatively, the issue of flight paths for scheduled jet aircraft operations would need to be addressed in association with any runway extension proposal designed to accommodate jet aircraft. See answer to (1).(14) No. See answer to (13).(15) None.(16) The need for a curfew would be a matter that would be considered in the context of the environmental assessment of a specific proposal as described in the answer to (1).(17) The public will be consulted and will have the opportunity to make detailed submissions on any upgrading proposals necessary to enable jet aircraft operations before they are implemented. See answer to (1).26098(Question No. 2348)234826098Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 7 February 2001.(1) What procedure is being followed to choose the Australian delegates to the 13th Asian Regional Meeting of the ILO to be held in Bangkok on 25 to 28 September 2001.(2) When are the names and qualifications of the delegates to be announced.(3) Has the ILO identified eight fundamental conventions.(4) Which of the fundamental Conventions has been ratified by members of the ILO Asian Region, and on what dates?26098Abbott, Tony, MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) No consideration has yet been given to the composition of the Australian delegation.(3) and (4) Yes. The fundamental Conventions and ratifications by Asian Region members are: Asian Region MemberDate RatifiedAsian Region MemberDate RatifiedConvention 87 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948Convention 98 Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949Australia28/02/1973Australia28/02/1973Bangladesh22/06/1972Bangladesh22/06/1972Cambodia23/08/1999Cambodia23/08/1999Indonesia09/06/1998Fiji19/04/1974Japan14/06/1965Indonesia15/07/1957Indonesia09/06/1998Iraq27/11/1962Kazakhstan13/12/2000Japan20/10/1953Kuwait21/09/1961Jordan12/12/1968Kyrgystan31/03/1992Kyrgystan31/03/1992Mongolia03/06/1969Lebanon01/06/1977Myanmar04/03/1955Malaysia05/06/1961Pakistan14/02/1951Mongolia03/06/1969Papua New Guinea02/06/2000Nepal11/11/1996Philippines29/12/1953Pakistan26/05/1952Kyrgystan31/03/1992Papua New Guinea01/05/1976Sri Lanka15/09/1995Philippines29/12/1953Syrian Arab Republic26/07/1960Singapore25/10/1965Tajikistan26/11/1993Sri Lanka13/12/1972Turkmenistan15/05/1997Syrian Arab Republic07/06/1957Yemen29/07/1976Tajikistan26/11/1993Turkmenistan15/05/1997Uzbekistan13/07/1992Yemen14/04/1969Asian Region MemberDate RatifiedAsian Region MemberDate RatifiedConvention 29 Forced Labour 1930Convention 105 Abolition of Forced Labour 1957Australia02/01/1932Afghanistan16/05/1963Bahrain11/06/1981Australia07/06/1960Bangladesh22/06/1972Bahrain14/07/1998Cambodia24/02/1969Bangladesh22/06/1972Fiji19/04/1974Cambodia23/08/1999India30/11/1954Fiji19/04/1974Indonesia12/06/1950India18/05/2000Islamic Republic of Iran10/06/1957Indonesia07/06/1999Iraq27/11/1962Islamic Republic of Iran13/04/1959Japan21/11/1932Iraq15/06/1959Jordan06/06/1966Jordan31/03/1958Kuwait23/09/1968Kuwait21/09/1961Kyrgystan31/03/1992Kyrgystan18/02/1999Lao People's Democratic Republic23/01/1964Lebanon01/06/1977Lebanon01/06/1977MalaysiaDenounced10/01/1990Myanmar04/03/1955New Zealand14/06/1968New Zealand29/03/1998Pakistan15/02/1960Oman30/10/1998Papua New Guinea01/05/1976Pakistan23/12/1957Philippines17/11/1960Papua New Guinea01/05/1976Saudi Arabia15/06/1978Qatar12/03/1998SingaporeDenounced19/04/1979Saudi Arabia15/06/1978Syrian Arab Republic23/10/1958Singapore25/10/1965Tajikistan23/09/1999Solomon Islands06/08/1985Thailand02/12/1969Sri Lanka05/04/1950Turkmenistan15/05/1997Syrian Arab Republic26/07/1960United Arab Emirates24/02/1997Tajikistan26/11/1993Yemen14/09/1969Thailand26/02/1969Turkmenistan15/05/1997United Arab Emirates27/05/1982Uzbekistan13/07/1992Yemen14/04/1969Asian Region MemberDate RatifiedAsian Region MemberDate RatifiedConvention 100 Equal Remuneration, 1951Convention 111 Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), 1958Afghanistan22/08/1969Afghanistan01/10/1969Australia10/12/1974Australia15/06/1973Bangladesh28/01/1998Bahrain26/09/2000Cambodia23/08/1999Bangladesh22/06/1972China02/11/1990Cambodia23/08/1999India25/09/1958India03/06/1960Indonesia11/08/1958Indonesia07/06/1999Islamic Republic of Iran10/06/1972Islamic Republic of Iran30/06/1964Iraq28/08/1963Iraq15/06/1959Japan24/08/1967Jordan04/07/1963Jordan22/09/1966Kazakhstan06/12/1999Republic of Korea08/12/1997Republic of Korea09/12/1992Kyrgystan31/03/1992Kuwait01/12/1996Lebanon01/06/1977Kyrgystan31/03/1992Malaysia09/09/1997Lebanon01/06/1977Mongolia03/06/1969Mongolia03/06/1969Nepal19/09/1974Nepal19/09/1974New Zealand30/06/1983New Zealand30/06/1983Papua New Guinea02/06/2000Pakistan24/01/1961Philippines29/12/1953Papua New Guinea02/06/2000Saudi Arabia15/06/1978Philippines17/11/1960Sri Lanka01/04/1993Qatar18/08/1976Syrian Arab Republic07/06/1957Saudi Arabia15/06/1978Tajikistan26/11/1993Sri Lanka27/11/1998Thailand08/02/1999Syrian Arab Republic10/05/1960Turkmenistan15/05/1997Tajikistan26/11/1993United Arab Emirates24/02/1997Turkmenistan15/05/1997Uzbekistan13/07/1992Uzbekistan13/07/1992Viet Nam07/10/1997Viet Nam07/10/1997Uzbekistan13/07/1992Yemen22/08/1969Viet Nam07/10/1997Yemen29/07/1976Asian Region MemberDate RatifiedAsian Region MemberDate RatifiedConvention 138 Minimum Age, 1973Convention 183 Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, 1999Cambodia23/08/1999Indonesia23/03/2000China28/04/1999Jordan20/04/2000Indonesia07/06/1999Kuwait15/08/2000Iraq13/02/1985Malaysia10/11/2000Japan15/06/2000Papua New Guinea02/06/2000Jordan23/03/1998Philippines28/11/2000Republic of Korea28/01/1999Qatar30/05/2000Kuwait15/11/1999Yemen15/06/2000Kyrgystan31/03/1992Malaysia09/09/1997Nepal30/05/1997Papua New Guinea02/06/2000Philippines04/06/1998Sri Lanka11/02/2000Tajikistan26/11/1993United Arab Emirates02/10/1998Yemen15/06/2000Up-to-date advice on the status of ratifications of ILO Conventions is available on the ILO's website, via its database ILOLEX, at www.ilo.org.26101(Question No. 2350)235026101Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 7 February 2001:(1) Does the Government regard any of the ILOs health and safety Conventions listed in the answer to question No. 2084 as appropriate, in whole or in part, for the Australian States.(2) Does the Constitution for the ILO require the Government to arrange for periodical consultation between the Federal and State authorities with a view to promoting coordinated action to give effect to the provisions of such Conventions.(3) What were the dates, modes and outcome of the last consultation held by Minister Reith, with each of the States in respect to each Convention.(4) What arrangements is he making with each of the States for consultation in respect to each Convention.26101Abbott, Tony, MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) Article 19.7 of the ILO Constitution requires federal States such as Australia to arrange periodic meetings to discuss unratified Conventions, subject to the concurrence of the State and Territory governments. Consistent with this Article implementation of the health and safety Conventions referred to in the answer to question No. 2084 is primarily a matter for the State and Territory governments.(3) and (4) As agreed between the Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers for Labour, and most recently updated in 1998, officials from all governments meet at least annually to consider ILO matters. Commonwealth, State and Territory officials met to discuss ILO matters in Perth on 20 October 2000. The Conventions listed in the answer to Question No. 2084 were discussed at the Perth meeting. Participants considered that it would be appropriate to re-examine the status of these Conventions at their next meeting in the light of anticipated legislative developments in some jurisdictions. The next meeting of Commonwealth, State and Territory officials to discuss ILO matters, including these Conventions, is scheduled to be held in Melbourne in October 2001. Outcomes of meetings of officials are reported to the Workplace Relations Ministers' Council.