2001-05-233919REPS2682102001-05-23—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills26821R129926821Bill presented by Mr Abbott, and read a first time.2682109:31:0026821Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Workplace Relations (Registered Organisations) Bill 2001 was introduced into this parliament on 4 April 2001. The purpose of that bill is to update and upgrade the existing provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 concerning the regulation and internal administration of registered industrial organisations, and to enact those provisions in a separate statutory instrument. If passed, that bill would improve both financial accountability and democratic control within registered industrial organisations, whilst retaining the important role such bodies have in the formal workplace relations system.The amendments advanced in the principal amending bill are technical though nonetheless important measures concerning record keeping, financial reporting, disclosure to members, duties of officers and employees, the conduct and integrity of industrial elections, disamalgamation, cancellation of registration and compliance and enforcement.They are sensible measures which, when judged objectively, should be seen as enhancing the confidence that current and prospective members have in the administration of registered industrial organisations.The Workplace Relations (Registered Organisations) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001 is a necessary adjunct to the primary bill. It contains transitional and savings provisions designed to ensure a smooth transition from the current regulation of registered organisations under the Workplace Relations Act to the proposed registered organisations act.The scheme of the consequential provisions bill is that orders, injunctions, declarations, decisions, determinations, exemptions or permissions that are operating before the commencement of the proposed registered organisations act will continue in force as if they had been made under the corresponding provisions of the new act. An organisation that was registered under the Workplace Relations Act would be taken to be registered under the proposed new act. Applications for registration under the current act not completed before the commencement of the registered organisations act would continue to be dealt with under the current act. Existing rules of organisations would be preserved, and continue in force as if they had been certified under the new act. Organisations would have six months from the commencement of the new act to update their rules (if necessary) to bring them into conformity with legislative requirements, with the Industrial Registrar able to grant extensions of time in appropriate cases. Organisations would have up to 12 months from the commencement of the new act to remove from their register of members persons who had been unfinancial for more than 24 months. In general, amended financial and reporting obligations would apply from the first full financial year after the commencement of the new act or the gazettal of new reporting requirements. Civil penalties and offences created by the new act would apply to conduct from commencement of the new act. The consequential provisions bill also provides that the Federal Court would have jurisdiction to hear and determine issues that may arise in the application of the new act to particular transitional matters.This bill is a necessary technical measure that complements the objectives of the registered organisations bill. In conjunction with that bill, it will provide the legal framework around which registered industrial organisations can update and upgrade administrative and reporting practices in order to become more accountable, more competitive and better equipped to deal with the demands of their membership and the workplace relations system. I present a signed copy of the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Bevis) adjourned.Bills26822R129626822Bill presented by Mr Abbott, and read a first time.2682209:36:0026822Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.An important characteristic of Australia's reformed workplace relations system is the opportunity it has given for workers—union and non-union alike—to fully participate in the formal processes of the system, particularly in making collective or individual workplace agreements. A significant contributing factor in this transformation has been the coalition's commitment to freedom of association in the workplace. This fundamental principle is reflected in both the objects and provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, such as those which prohibit compulsory unionism, preference to unionists or coercion in agreement making, and in the promotional and enforcement functions of the Office of the Employment Advocate.Regrettably, this commitment to the principle of both individual and collective freedom of association is not shared by all in this parliament. In recent years an emerging trend has been identified whereby certain trade union leaders have attempted to coerce non-union employees into joining a union by making a demand that all non-unionists pay what they call a `service fee' on account of union participation in agreement negotiations in their workplace. The coercive nature of the compulsory fee demand is highlighted by the fact that it is typically made without the consent of the relevant employee and may not even be made until after the so-called services are rendered. Indeed, in many cases the fee demanded has been set at about $500 per year, which is well above the level of annual union dues.At its June 2000 conference, the Australian Council of Trade Unions formally adopted a policy in support of unions pursuing these compulsory fees and including them in certified agreements. Compulsory fee demands on non-unionists are now being included in union bargaining logs of claim across a variety of industries.There can be no doubt that a compulsory fee demand that is not accompanied by the genuine prior consent of the relevant employee is an affront to that employee's individual rights to freedom of association. Employees who have chosen not to be members of a trade union are faced with the payment of a bargaining fee to that union or payment of an annual trade union membership fee. Employees who are members of trade unions but who wish to resign their membership are placed in an equally invidious position.The government does not accept that employees should be the subject of such direct or indirect coercion. The principles of freedom of association and freedom in agreement making mean that an employee should be entitled to exercise his or her own choice about how and if he or she wishes to participate in negotiating workplace agreements in his or her workplace. Indeed, under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 not only are employees entitled to the protection of the law if they choose to join or not join a trade union but they are also entitled to nominate themselves or any other person as their bargaining agent in workplace negotiations. Unless such fees are the product of informed prior written consent by the individual employee subject to the demand, they are coercive and should be unlawful.It is also of concern to the government that trade unions advocating such fees are seeking to include compulsory fee demands in certified agreements. This means that those unions are trying to extract a majority employee vote to coerce non-union members who may in fact have voted against the agreement to either pay the fee or join the union. This is fundamentally unfair and should not be countenanced by public policy makers. Moreover, by attempting to use the cover of a certified agreement, trade unions are attempting to use an industrial instrument recognised by the Workplace Relations Act and approved by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to give such demands an aura of legitimacy that they would not otherwise have. It is in the public interest that the act not only prohibit such non-consensual demands but also prevent the misuse of certified agreements to advance these coercive purposes. That is what the bill does.The inclusion of these compulsory fees in certified agreements was recently challenged in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission by the Employment Advocate. In a decision earlier this year, a senior member of the AIRC found that such fees are in fact designed for coercive purposes. It was however concluded that, upon a construction of the current terms of the act, they were not prohibited from inclusion in certified agreements, notwithstanding their coercive character. Although that decision is under appeal, the fact that there is no specific statutory prohibition on such provisions means that their coercive impact may remain until such time as the loophole allowing their inclusion in certified agreements is closed by legislative amendment.I now turn to the provisions of the bill.This bill proposes to amend the Workplace Relations Act to prohibit unions and employer organisations from requiring nonmembers to pay fees for so-called `bargaining services', except where an employee has individually agreed in writing to pay a fee in advance of the bargaining services being provided. Given that agreement to any payment of such fees should be a private matter for the individual choice of each employee unfettered by others, the bill will prohibit a certified agreement from including any provision relating to payment of fees for bargaining services.This bill proposes to amend the Workplace Relations Act to prohibit discriminatory action against a person because he or she has refused to pay or agreed to pay a fee for bargaining services, or because the person has paid or intends to pay a lawfully recognised fee. The amendments will also prohibit unions and employer organisations from encouraging or inciting others to take discriminatory action for these same reasons. These amendments will have equal application to both trade unions and employer associations.In introducing this bill, the government is making it abundantly clear that the specific terms of the Workplace Relations Act should prohibit non-consensual fee demands. Whilst we have intended that the current terms of the act proscribe such provisions in certified agreements, the recent activism by trade unions in advancing these demands and the legal doubt now cast over the issue make a compelling case for specific legislative action.In introducing this bill, I emphasise that the government does not seek to impede the proper activities of trade unions or employer organisations. The bill itself gives scope for bargaining fees which are the product of genuine prior consent of the individual and the relevant organisation. Indeed, our laws recognise an important statutory role for registered industrial organisations and confer upon them significant rights and obligations. But that legal standing cannot be at the expense of the right of individual employers and employees to freedom of association and protection from coercive or discriminatory conduct. Organisations that seek to achieve relevance in the workplace through coercive conduct, as these fee demands have been characterised by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, should be given no comfort by the workplace relations system.I present a copy of the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Bevis) adjourned.Bills26824R120726824Debate resumed from 7 December 2000, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.09:44:0026824Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Amendment Bill 2000 is one of two bills the government introduced late in the previous session and deals with changes to the operation of occupational health and safety for those engaged under the auspices of the Commonwealth. There are a number of aspects of the bill in which the opposition sees merit, and I would like at the outset to thank the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and his departmental officers for their briefing and assistance during the lead-up to its introduction into the parliament. Unfortunately, the bill is tainted, as are so many of the government's pieces of legislation in this area, by an unfounded obsession with wanting to remove the role of unions from processes irrespective of the merits of the case, and I will say something about that shortly.I turn first to those issues on which I think the bill has merit, and I hope that the government gives some consideration to allowing the passage of those aspects of the bill. I think its chances in the Senate, as it stands at the moment, are not so great, and the government may like to give some thought to pursuing those aspects of the bill which the parliament will clearly support and jettison their ideological baggage.The bill does make changes to the operation of offences under the act. Currently, all offences under the act are criminal offences. Largely as a result of that, there have been only eight successful prosecutions since 1992, with 28,000 incidents reported. The bill proposes to amend this enforcement regime to one based on both civil and criminal penalties for contravention of the act, with many of those matters currently dealt with as criminal offences becoming civil actions instead. We view that as a sensible adjustment which will enhance compliance and the operation of the legislation. Criminal penalties are to be retained in the act for contraventions which result in death or serious bodily harm or if the contravention is intentional or reckless. For offences which are more appropriately dealt with in a criminal justice system, the courts are also going to be given the power to grant injunctions to prevent the occurrence or recurrence of a breach of the act and to make remedial orders. These are also provisions supported by the opposition.We will be moving amendments to the bill, one of which deals with this situation of offences. One area that has been omitted from the legislation which we think is important to be included as a criminal offence is where employers expose employees to a risk of death or serious bodily harm in a careless manner. It may be appropriate at this stage to foreshadow that I will move amendments Nos 1 to 14 standing in my name. Amendment No. 13 deals directly with the question of offences where an employer exposes an employee to a risk of death or serious bodily harm as distinct from death actually occurring. We do not want to have a circumstance where someone, as an employer, could recklessly behave in a way that exposes someone to death or serious bodily harm and quite possibly—more through good fortune than good management—the employee is not in the end seriously hurt. If employers behave in that way, there does need to be some serious penalty imposed. Those provisions, we think, are quite sensible and enhance the operation of the legislation.I am concerned, though, that much of the bill is preoccupied with removing unions from a role in the occupational health and safety framework of the Commonwealth. I do not propose to go through all the information that was put on the record. Excuse me—the problem with Melbourne is that I picked up the flu while I was down there.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—I wish.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—You can sit down.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—I do not propose to go through all the statistics—XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—Save your voice. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane has the call and, in deference to the state of his voice, he ought to be heard in silence.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—I am indebted to the minister for his deep concern for my welfare. I do not propose to go through all the statistics—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—While I have a vested interest in this, I might advise a hefty dose of orange juice, to boot, member for Brisbane.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—Thank you. In Queensland it is rum and orange juice, actually. The fact is that the Commonwealth scheme, as was acknowledged by both sides of the parliament during the debate on a similar bill before these sittings, is the best functioning scheme in the nation. Not only does it have the lowest premiums; it has a declining claim rate, both in aggregate terms and in terms of the percentage of the work force lodging claims. These are very impressive outcomes for any occupational health and safety system and are the envy of state schemes.One of the reasons for the success of that occupational health and safety structure is that earlier in the 1990s—in 1992—the then government put in place a process whereby unions were directly involved in workplace occupational health and safety committees. It is no coincidence that, since that time, the performance of the Commonwealth scheme has improved and has continued to improve. There is overseas research that will also validate the view that occupational health and safety programs function better where organised labour is involved in their administration. The reasons for that, of course, are that organised labour—unions—have people who are more skilled in these matters and are able to ensure, along with management, that the joint goal of having safe workplaces is best applied. The government has not advanced one argument for removing unions from this process. I will be interested to hear the views of government members in this debate to sustain the argument that unions should be removed and how they believe removing the unions will actually improve the outcome for occupational health and safety for Commonwealth public servants. Clearly, the record tells us that is not the case. The opposite is the case. But a great portion of this bill is devoted to removing unions from that structure. We will not support that, and any fair-minded analysis of the occupational health and safety system within the Commonwealth will lead you to the conclusion that there is no purpose to be served by going down that path.Our own experience in Australia tells us how important union involvement is in occupational health and safety matters. The Australian workplace industrial relations surveys in 1990 and 1995 showed that, if there was no union, only 19 per cent of workplaces had an OH&S committee. In most unionised workplaces—59 per cent— there is a union involvement in an occupational health and safety committee. Research that has been funded by Worksafe Australia shows that workplaces with effective health and safety committees have fewer workers compensation claims. It does beggar belief that the government would want to throw that aside and expose its own employees to what, according to the statistics, will be a greater risk of harm and injury—and for no reason other than an ideological obsession about removing the unions from all walks of life as far as they can. We have seen that in the workplace relations bills that have been introduced again this morning. We will therefore be opposing those provisions of the bill, and many of the amendments that I will move go to those matters.I want to give an example of how things operate at the moment in a real life case in Telstra where a union occupational health and safety officer who is an employee of Telstra—he does normal work along with all of his colleagues but, in addition, assumes responsibilities for monitoring and assisting with occupational health and safety matters—has provided a statutory declaration about his behaviour because he has been subjected to disciplinary action by Telstra, who clearly have tried to cover up the issues which he has raised. I want to read briefly from his statutory declaration. He says:... I took the liberty of visiting the Port Melb. exchange during my lunch break. I noticed some Telstra vehicles outside the exchange and a contractor's van out the back. I donned my protective clothing including face mask and entered the exchange to find a tech on the main frame and a couple of NDC staff in the lunchroom as well as a contractor fitting a wall air-conditioning unit in the room where it appeared that the asbestos had been already removed. I noticed dust on the exchanges commander system which is located in the same room where the asbestos was being removed. I did not see any evidence of any sealing works, there was no signage to be found anywhere nor any evidence of air monitoring going on. The room where the asbestos was being removed also had 3 air conditioning ducts that are connected to the rest of the exchange, these ducts were not sealed. I immediately rang my team leader who instructed me to clear the area and put temporary signage up on all exits until she got there. Not long after she arrived to take charge of proceedings the asbestos contractor turned up and entered the exchange, saw the signage that I put up and proceeded to remove it. I identified myself to him as the OH&S Rep. and told him to leave the signage in place until further notice. He reluctantly complied. My team leader advised me that she would organise for the air monitoring to be done and I resumed my duties.That is a quite proper thing for an occupational health and safety representative to do. We are talking here about workers being exposed to a lethal environment. Working with asbestos, as we all know, is a threat to life, and there are high standards for involvement of workers with that substance. This person had been contacted and told that, in an exchange with asbestos, work was being conducted, including drilling through walls and other things that would disturb the asbestos. The asbestos was to be removed, but the contractor removing it had not been complying with the normal requirements to seal the area off and to ensure that the airconditioning ducts had been closed. Those members who have had any experience with this matter know that they literally seal an area in what amounts to a large plastic bag so that the contaminants are not removed from the site. As a result of quite diligent work by this person, he has now been subjected to disciplinary action from within Telstra. I will read an internal memo that he received dated 21 August last year:This is to record that as a result of the interview on Friday 18th August 2000, for failure to follow a directive, and unacceptable behaviour which compromised your personal safety and breached your Duty of Care obligations under the O. H. & S. (Commonwealth Employment) Act, you are now being issued with this written warning.This is a matter which is actually being pursued by the union in seeking to protect that member and to ensure that that member's proper activities are not going to be used as an excuse by management to cover up their own incompetence. It is interesting that Comcare entered the debate in relation to this fellow and wrote to Telstra as well. They referred to the gentleman by name and said that he:... was issued a written warning for failing to follow a directive relating to his activities ... The CEPU, an involved union who was representing [this person] requested that we investigate this matter.This is Comcare investigating it. The letter continued:As you would be aware, we have not as yet conducted a formal investigation of this matter; instead, I requested in my October 18 letter, information pertaining to the issue. It was provided. The letter continued:After considering the material contained in the response, I believe it would be appropriate for the written warning, dated August 21 2000—that is the one I just read—to be withdrawn.So Comcare have investigated the circumstances surrounding this incident and have written to Telstra and said that, in their view, the warning should be withdrawn; that is, that the occupational health and safety representative acted totally appropriately. Not to be outdone, Comcare having made those representations to Telstra on 30 January this year, Telstra then wrote another letter on 9 February to this occupational health and safety person who was a union member and said to him again:This is to record that as a result of the interview on Friday 18th August 2000, for unacceptable behaviour which compromised your personal safety ... you are now being issued with this written warning. This person has done absolutely nothing wrong; in fact, he should be commended for doing what management had failed to do. They exposed workers to a potentially life threatening situation. He did his job properly, he reported to his team leader and no argument could be had about the way he conducted himself, but, because, I suspect, he embarrassed more senior people in the organisation of Telstra, they decided to come the heavy with him. The only reason he has been able to withstand that is that he is there as part of a collective representation; he is there on behalf of all the workers as a union member and representing the union. The union has made representations to ensure he is not victimised. Comcare have investigated it and have agreed with the union and with the individual, but Telstra, not deterred, as recently as February this year persisted in seeking to intimidate him and warned him that there was a formal complaint on his record. Imagine what would have transpired if that person had not been able to avail themselves of the support of a union. We know what would happen in that situation. A person standing alone as an individual, confronted by senior management in Telstra to that effect, would have had little or no hope of rectifying the situation, yet the government want to remove unions and organised labour from this process of occupational health and safety.OH&S should not be the subject of bitter, partisan division. I am sure that everyone in this parliament, if asked, would say they believed all workers in Australia were entitled to work in a safe and healthy environment, that no worker should be knowingly exposed to unacceptable risk. Everyone in this parliament would hold that view. The evidence from research in Australia and abroad tells us you have a better chance of producing that outcome where there are union representatives on occupational health and safety committees. In the face of that, the government want to remove unions from the process altogether. There can be no justification for that other than the ideological baggage that this government bring to all of these debates. I hope that the government do not sink this bill because of their intransigence on the issue of union involvement in these committees. I hope they do not, but I make this clear: we in the Labor Party will not support this legislation while it contains those provisions.One other aspect of the bill that gives me serious concern is the change in the requirement for establishment of workplace committees. We have a system that is working well. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, who is at the table, during a debate on the referendum about whether we should have a republic, was often heard to say, `If it ain't broke, why fix it? Why change the system?' That was the cry of the minister. He had another cry at the time, which was `Don't trust a politician'—and in his case one could understand that—although it did cause him some concern among his own backbench. But, to coin the phrase that the minister at the table liked reciting when the nation was voting on whether we should be a republic, if it ain't broke, why change it? We know this system works. So not only are the government proposing to remove the very core of the system, the role of organised labour, but they want to change how committees are set up.We have at the moment a committee structure that effectively provides an occupational health and safety committee in all workplaces. The government want to change that. They want to change that to a system that, for example, would allow—although they tell us this is not what they want to do— a department to have one occupational health and safety committee for the entire state of New South Wales. So Telstra might decide they want to have one committee for all of Queensland. I ask you: how on earth could one committee—and you can have it wherever you like; I do not care whether you put it in Townsville or Rockhampton or Cunnamulla or Brisbane—know that the practices being adopted in the hundreds of workplaces spread across the state meet the necessary standard? The obvious answer is it could not. The government would say that is not the intention of the legislation, but that is in fact what the legislation allows. If it is not the intention of the legislation, the government should introduce amendments to rule that out, but they have not. This bill will enable any of the government departments that are subject to this to have one committee for an entire state. That will totally undermine the foundations of what has been an outstanding success. So I think the onus in this debate is very much on the government: if they want to destroy the committee system that exists, they have to put up the arguments to justify it. If they want to destroy the involvement of unions in the occupational health and safety committee structure, whatever it may be, they have to put up the evidence and arguments to support it. They have not. We will support the other provisions of the bill that I have mentioned. The amendments that I will move deal principally with removing from the bill those things that seek to remove unions from the organisation of occupational health and safety committees and also seek to remove the problem associated with setting up one committee for an entire state. I would commend to the government close scrutiny of our amendment No. 13, which deals with establishing an additional offence that would be dealt with by criminal activity. I think that has sound merit in it. I would also suggest to the government that they might look at our amendment No. 14, which is largely technical but which they might find is necessary for their purposes as well as for ours.That said, I look forward to government members endeavouring to defend the indefensible. I want to hear the government members tell the parliament and the people and, more importantly, those workers who are affected by this legislation why the best system operating in Australia should have its entire structure redesigned and the core of its essence taken away from it. There has not been a shred of evidence advanced for that, so let us get rid of the ideological baggage. Let us make the improvements that are in this bill and do something to actually enhance the position of the work force employed by the Commonwealth rather than once again, as this government have done on so many occasions, put in the knife and twist it.10:07:0026828Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10— Today's debate on the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Amendment Bill 2000 is important for a number of reasons. Firstly and most importantly, employees and employers, whatever their situation, should want a safe workplace. A safe work environment means a better workplace. A workplace that encourages productive activity within the boundaries of sensible rules, predetermined procedures and a good dose of commonsense should lead to beneficial outcomes for all involved, and this bill is more about outcomes than process, as it should be.At an individual level, employees, whether they be workers in the traditional sense or management, need to be able to go home at night knowing that they have put in a good day's work and done their best for the organisation as a whole, for their immediate colleagues and for themselves. When they leave home in the morning, saying their goodbyes to their spouse or partner and kids, they expect to come home safely at the end of the day. Nobody wants to go home knowing that a colleague has been injured or indeed killed through their work. Unfortunately, accidents do happen. They always have and, in an imperfect world, they always will. It could be said that there are very few actual workplace accidents; most injuries and deaths occur due to a failure or breakdown in what should be safe and responsible work practices.This legislation is an important statement by the government to Commonwealth employees, to Australian workers. Australians expect their governments to act responsibly across all areas of public policy. From time to time, as circumstances change, it is necessary to amend existing laws. This ensures their relevance and effectiveness in our rapidly changing world. So it is not a matter of `If it ain't broke, don't fix it'; the environment out there does change, and it is a matter of keeping up to date with those changes before the changes take you. These amendments will bring about significant improvements for Commonwealth employees through safer Commonwealth workplaces. The act and its state equivalents are based on the work of the Robens committee in the United Kingdom in the early 1970s. The Robens committee studied the English occupational health and safety laws and concluded that workplace health and safety would be promoted if government, management and employees were jointly responsible. Underpinning self-regulation was statutory recognition of joint consultative practices as the basis of the new approach. To quote from its 1972 report:Health and safety is foremost a matter of efficient management. But it is not a management prerogative ... real progress is impossible without the cooperation and commitment of all employees ... employees must be able to participate fully in the making and monitoring of arrangements for safety and health at work.There should be a statutory duty on every employer to consult with their employees or their representatives at the workplace on measures for promoting safety and health at work, and to provide arrangements for the participation of employees in the development of such measures. The approach of the Robens committee was reinforced by reviews in Australia. The New South Wales based Williams report in 1981 focused on cooperation and work force participation. The Williams report recommended statutory codification of employer and employee duties and cooperative self-regulation via the establishment of workplace committees and health and safety representatives. It also recommended the strengthening of penalties. Significantly, the report endorsed but did not require union involvement in the selection of health and safety representatives. Ultimately, it was the specific health and safety knowledge of the employee that was most important, not his or her union membership. The effectiveness of the current act has been reduced because of its emphasis on mandatory union involvement and on process, not outcomes. Consistent with the Workplace Relations Act, the focus of occupational health and safety regulation has to shift away from imposing solutions. These amendments enable those in the workplace to work together to make informed decisions and to determine how to reduce health and safety risks. Under this bill, important amendments will be made, and these relate to an employer's duty of care, workplace arrangements and penalties. Instead of solely dealing with unions, an employer will be required to deal with all employees when determining safety management arrangements. `Safety management arrangements' is a term that collectively describes a range of issues that could be covered, along with the individual needs of workplaces.Working together, employers and employees can reduce health and safety risks. It is our collective responsibility to act. There is nothing sacred about the responsibility being confined to management and unions. The current act's mandated role for unions will end, just as in industrial relations generally. The coalition wants to fundamentally improve the relationship between employers and employees. Those doing the work are in a far better position to know what is required and to accept the responsibility to change. Contrary to the views of the other side, the coalition is not anti -trade union: all workers have the right to join a union or to not join a union. Speaking for myself, in my previous life I spent a number of years working with employees on the shop floor, introducing participatory management schemes and team based work groups. One of the facts of the situation is that these teams were often made up of employees from across the organisation's spectrum, often not involving union based employees. People came to those teams with a thorough knowledge of their workplace and the practices that took place. They are the ones that are in a far better position to know what is required for safety and workplace relations.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—Tell that to the Telstra linesmen.ZJ6Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESI—I have to say to the member for Brisbane that I too would be concerned if one of the unintended consequences of this bill is that you end up having one committee for the entire state. I agree with you: I do not believe that you can have one committee that knows everything about workplaces right across the state and across a number of sites. But, as the member for Brisbane also acknowledged, that is not the intent of this legislation as stated by the government. If it is an unforeseen consequence, I certainly will be concerned about that as well. These new measures will allow employees the right to be represented by an employee association that has a principal purpose of protecting and promoting the industrial interests of its members in the workplace. Work groups, health and safety representatives and health and safety committees will remain. These groups and the roles of nominated individuals will be just as important. In many cases they will be the drivers of workplace safety. I understand the concern of the member for Brisbane and those on the other side, because by tradition unions have had a significant role on work safety issues. It has been one of those areas that have been sacred to their role in the workplace. There is nothing to say that that role will not continue. It is simply that, according to this legislation, it will not be a mandated role; it will be a situation that will take place according to the wishes of employees on the work floor.The government seeks to increase the emphasis on self-regulation, but a strong and effective enforcement regime will remain. It is worth noting that the Commonwealth in putting this legislation forward is adopting the same approach that operates under state law. Currently all offences under the act are criminal offences. The government is proposing to amend the enforcement regime to one based on both civil and criminal penalties. New civil penalties should have the effect of reducing delays in finalising legal cases. Criminal penalties will be retained for contraventions which result in death or serious bodily harm or if the contravention is intentional or reckless and for offences that are more appropriately dealt with in the criminal justice system. The courts, under these amendments, will be given the power to grant injunctions to prevent the occurrence or recurrence of a breach and to make remedial orders.This legislation will enable Comcare, the responsible Commonwealth agency, to accept enforceable undertakings—that is, a commitment from employers to act appropriately and within the law. We are not allowing employers to get off scot-free. There is a legislative requirement on employers to act appropriately within the law. Enforceable undertakings will be available as an alternative to prosecution and should assist in obtaining voluntary compliance. If those on the other side believe we are letting employers off the hook by moving towards self-regulation, they should note the increased penalties for a breach. Currently, the maximum penalty under the act for a breach of the employer's duty of care is $100,000. The new penalty of $242,000 for a civil breach and $495,000 for a criminal breach will be consistent with the penalties prescribed by the state jurisdictions. The costs of accidents and injury at work are not insignificant to our nation. In this context the coalition's changes to the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act, as I indicated earlier, are responsible and very necessary, given the changing nature of workplace relations.In the time that I have left I would like to compare the Commonwealth's approach with that pursued by the Bracks government in the state of Victoria. The WorkCover scheme covers most non-Commonwealth employees. After successfully operating for many years, WorkCover is negatively affecting employers. Like the Commonwealth scheme, it has until recent times been well run and offered compensation and income support for employees, based on relatively low premiums. While the costs for Commonwealth agencies and government business enterprises continues to be relatively low, WorkCover premiums for Victorian employers have risen dramatically in the last year.There has been a mini revolt of sorts, mostly from responsible small businessmen and women, who are now shouldering the burden of massive premiums increases. Increases of between 40 and 100 per cent are not uncommon—and I am sure that in your electorate office, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, as in mine, you would have had expressions of concern from your small business community about some of these increases. In the majority of cases these very real and unexpected imposts are not due to increased claims. Businesses are paying more, despite their good record on workplace health and safety. The Bracks Labor government, in contrast to the federal coalition, is moving away from a model of a cooperative and constructive approach to occupational health and safety. Its emphasis on wielding the big stick has greatly upset many of Deakin's small businesses. Last year, two-thirds of respondents to my business survey said that WorkCover premium increases were hurting their business—reducing their margins and affecting, most importantly, hiring intentions.Federally, Labor appears to be making the same sorts of mistakes. The opposition to sensible change once again proves that this union dominated political party is unable to make sensible public policy on employment related issues. This contrasts with the coalition, which wants greater consultation and participation at the workplace level. With around 75 per cent of the work force not in a union, the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia must ensure that all employees can be involved in issues affecting their work and the workplace. As I said earlier, unions are not prevented from representing their members. Their input is welcome, if that is what they seek to do.Collectively, working Australians are responsible for occupation health and safety. Employers, through legislation, have an established duty of care and are primarily responsible. These amendments do not change this fact. Rather, they require employers to continue to work with employees. These amendments seek to improve the way the Commonwealth's laws work in practice. They aim to make the workplace a safer and healthier environment. It is abundantly clear that occupational health and safety is too important to be swallowed up in class warfare rhetoric from either side of this chamber. I commend this bill and its amendments to the House.10:21:0026831Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I rise to speak in this debate on the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Amendment Bill 2000. Before turning to the substantive provisions of the bill, I have to say that I was a little surprised by some aspects of the member for Deakin's contribution to this House on the bill. It has been my experience when I survey small businesses in my electorate, which I do regularly, that what I get back are blistering attacks on the business activity statement— and that continues to be true despite the Howard government's most recent backdown. I have had occasion to go to the eastern suburbs of Melbourne as a member of Labor's business activity statement inquiry. I think the member for Deakin might find that, across those suburbs, small businesses are still infuriated by the government's business activity statement and that when they fill in surveys they put comments down the bottom like: `Voted Liberal for 22 years. Will never vote Liberal again.' So I would suggest to the member opposite that, if he is interested in servicing the needs of his small business constituency, he might start with the business activity statement.Having said that, I turn to the provisions of this bill. This bill has three main aspects: first, removal of the role of unions from occupational health and safety matters; secondly, increasing the strength and variety of compliance measures in the occupational health and safety area; and, thirdly, extending civil and criminal penalties to Commonwealth employees. It is my intention to deal predominantly with the first issue—that is, the removal or limitation of the role of unions. If we look at the specific provisions of this bill, we find that a number of them are directed towards that end. For example, in section 5 we find that the definitions of registered union and involved union have been deleted. In section 16 we find that the requirement to consult with unions is removed and has been replaced by a requirement to consult with employees. Unions are marginalised to circumstances in which their involvement is subject to there being no health and safety representative. In section 24 we find that unions can no longer request variations of the designation of work groups; only employees can do that. In section 25A we find that the unions' role in relation to the conduct of elections of health and safety representatives has been removed. In section 31 we find that the role of unions has been limited in relation to notice of the resignation of the health and safety representative. In section 41 we find that there is a limit on the role of unions in relation to requesting an investigation of a workplace. In section 48 we find that the unions' role has been limited in relation to a decision of an investigator regarding a prohibition notice on dangerous work—that is, of course, appealing such decisions. And in section 77 we find that the role of unions has been limited in relation to the power to instigate prosecutions.The government justify these changes, this removal or limitation of the role of unions, on the basis of freedom of association rhetoric. I have had cause to comment in this House before on how this government approach freedom of association questions. When I last did so substantively it was in relation to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1999, which was another of the minister for education's failures in attacking student unions. But when we actually analyse the position of this government on freedom of association questions, we find that, curiously, they believe in the negative right—that is, the freedom not to associate—but they do not believe in the positive right—that is, the freedom to associate. So much of their legislation, and this bill falls well and truly within this slipstream, is about enforcing the negative right not to associate, but in no way recognising the positive right to associate.In these circumstances we can say that, if an employee has joined a union, she or he has in part done that because that person wants the union to act for them in relation to health and safety matters. But it is not good enough for this government that someone has willingly and freely chosen to associate. No—to the extent that they then give that representative organisation a role, they only do it if the mandate of that representative organisation is continuously renewed. So they do not accept the employee's decision to join the union as indicating what the employee wants done. They then say, `We will only give the union a role if the employee verifies that she or he wants the union to act for them in this particular matter.'We should contrast that position with our Corporations Law. There is no way and no circumstances in which this government constantly requires shareholders to renew their mandate to boards of directors. It basically says, `If you have become a shareholder, you have decided to associate with other members of the company. If you then elect a board of directors, that is fine, and the board can act for you in a representative capacity for the life of their term.' The government never says, `When the board is taking a big decision, we're going to require them to go back to the shareholders and get a separate mandate to act in relation to that particular decision.' But that is the sort of regime that this government imposes on unions; and this bill is part of that process. That is a fundamental failure to recognise and accord people the right to freely associate. This government does not believe in freedom of association.Then, of course, we find that all of these matters about the limitation of union roles and the sorts of things dealt with in this bill are somehow justified under the rubric of choice, that people out there in workplaces should have the right to choose in all circumstances what they want to do next. But, once again, when we look at how this government actually behaves, as opposed to the rhetoric, we find that it is not so red hot when it comes to the question of giving employees choice. I will refer to a recent example of this failure of this government to deal with the question of choice appropriately for employees.I refer this House to a recent Federal Court decision, Schanka v Employment National (Administration) Pty Ltd, which came down late last week. This deals with a very big policy change that the government engaged in—that is, the circumstances in which they determined to move away from the CES structure and to have a new competitive market in the provision of employment placement services. In those circumstances, some of the employees of the CES—that is, Commonwealth public servants—were offered transfers to Centrelink, some were offered transfers to Employment National, and Employment National was contacted through the then department, DEETYA, to provide employment services in the competitive market. This Federal Court decision deals with the question of duress being brought to bear by this government and their officers and agencies on those employees who sought to transfer to Employment National from the CES. So we have the government full of rhetoric about choice; but when it comes to a living example we do not see choice, we see a Federal Court finding of duress. I would recommend this case as interesting reading for members of this House in terms of how this government acts as opposed to what it says it does. We find, for example, that a Mr Peter Storey, who was at that stage the appointed managing director of Employment National, actually wrote to the minister in very revealing terms about the development of employment relationships for persons transferring from the former CES to Employment National. There is recounted in this judgment the details of a memorandum that he sent to the minister, and point 4 of that memorandum says:There is now an opportunity to operate award and union free. This from a government that cloaks itself in the mantle of choice. But, of course, when it is restructuring its employment arrangements it does not want people to choose to have an award and it does not want people to choose to be in a union—not my words, not my finding; that is from a Federal Court judge. It is on the record: this government applying duress to its employees in relation to their employment circumstances. That is something they certainly ought not to be proud of. The judgment goes on and, in the consideration of the issues, the learned judge says that by a certain date in 1998 when these transfer arrangements were all happening:... an employee seeking employment with ENA clearly had no alternative but to sign both an AWA and an agreement to terminate the AWA before they could take up employment with that company. At this stage the insistence on acceptance of employment on the terms in the letter containing the April 1998 condition was pressure to enter an AWA.This is a Federal Court finding about the conduct of this government in relation to questions of choice. The decision goes on and finds that the nominated individual employees who are the applicants in this case, as representative of a broader class, were forced by duress into accepting these conditions. The judge names the employees—there are four of them—and says that they had been offered employment with ENA to:... perform the same or substantially the same work in the same position and location as they had done as employees in the APS employed in the CES. The offer was by a company associated with the Commonwealth. However each—That is, the workers—was, in substance, rendered impotent in negotiating or bargaining about the terms and conditions on which they would perform the work which differed from the terms and conditions they had, to that point, enjoyed and whether the employment would be regulated by an AWA ... So there are lots of references to choice in this House, but when you are actually out on the ground dealing with real people's lives, this government is not about choice, it is about making sure people do not join unions, it is about making sure people sign substandard agreements and it is about making sure that that occurs through force and duress. That is a Federal Court finding on that question. Moving on from the ideological underpinning of this bill, which, of course, is about this government's fundamental belief against the freedom to associate—it does not believe in that—and this government's fundamental belief against employees getting any choice—it does not believe in that either— let us come to some actual practical examples of how the workings of this bill, if implemented, would affect health and safety matters. I honestly do not know what fantasy land this government lives in sometimes when it deals with health and safety matters, but I know from my former occupation as a partner of a very big plaintiff personal injury law firm that some of the things that happen to employees in terms of health and safety in this country remain very gross. Thinking back on the cases I had contact with or knowledge of when I was with Slater and Gordon, the most moving of them related to a young man who lost his arm in an industrial accident in a manufacturing enterprise. He tells the story of his arm getting caught in the machine, and the machine forcing him forward towards another piece of machinery which, if he hits, is going to kill him. He tells in very graphic detail how he struggled and struggled to get free—what he actually means is that he has torn his arm off his body to get away from the machine and from certain further grievous injury or potential death. That is the sort of thing that happens out in our workplaces. That is not the sort of thing that happens routinely in the Commonwealth public sector as a result of the nature of the work performed, but the sorts of health and safety issues that one deals with in the Commonwealth public sector tend to be complex health and safety issues. They tend to be about things like the introduction of new technology. We had, for example, the phenomenon of RSI, and that was about the introduction of new technology, ergonomics, the need for rest breaks and the interaction of people's physiology with the new requirements to keyboard quickly, not against firm resistance but against low resistance. We have in our society now problems with legionnaire's disease, which is about airconditioning systems, water cooling, waterborne bacteria and the spray of that water. There is the need for regular testing. We continue to have asbestos problems, which are about the containment of asbestos, its fragmenting and the inhalation of fibres. All of those things are quite complex issues and they generally require people to have some degree of expertise and training in relation to dealing with them. That is just an obvious given. I would say no-one in this room could wander out and go and look at a workplace and assess its risk for legionella. I do not know enough about airconditioning systems to do that. I suspect no-one sitting in this House, whether on the floor or in the advisers box, does either. In those circumstances, what we need are entities that have knowledge and expertise that can inform the people who are dealing with these issues. In part that is management, and it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth to ensure that its managers are as informed about those questions as they need to be. But, of course, in our occupational health and safety regime there is also the need to ensure that workers and health and safety representatives can deal with those questions competently. We all know that one of the main repositories of that knowledge, that expertise and that capacity to train in the Australian environment is the trade union movement. If you sideline trade unions then you are effectively sidelining the best possible expertise you could get on these questions to inform workers about what is going on in relation to them.If we look back over the broad ambit of some of the biggest personal injury cases and matters that have been dealt with in this country, there is no doubt that a lot of the knowledge and expertise to deal with those matters has been formulated through the trade union movement. It has been true in relation to the asbestos issue, in relation to the RSI issue and in relation to the question of deaths on construction sites and safer systems of working, particularly for multistorey buildings. To deny yourself the most fundamental access to that kind of expertise is to really say that you do not care about these questions as much as you should and that you do not want them dealt with as competently as they could be. So in this bill, basically this government is saying, `We would prefer, because of our obsession with unions, to sideline them, irrespective of their capacity to help.'The other aspect of non-real-world understanding that is replicated in this bill comes out of some of its sections such as, for example, the question of standing to appeal in the context of employees being affected by a decision. Under the current legislation, if you have a decision which affects your workplace and you want to appeal, the union can do that for you. Under this bill, if you have a decision which affects your workplace, that can be requested by an employee or by their representative union if the union receives and discloses a request by an employee. But either mechanism under this bill means that an individual employee has to get up and say that John Smith says or Mary Jones says that they are disturbed by this decision. We all know that there are some workplaces— thankfully they are fewer rather than many in number, and one would suspect that there are some within the Commonwealth public sector—where employees, whether or not they be the health and safety representative and whether or not they have legislative protections for their role, would feel intimidated by doing that and would not want management knowing that they are the one who dobbed, because they would worry about the repercussions that might have for their employment. We can point to all the legislative protections in the world, but we all know that, if a manager wants to make life difficult for a worker, there is always a capacity to chisel and to hurt in a way that can affect people and their emotional wellbeing, their perceptions about their employment security, their career advancement and the like. The current circumstance where the union can appeal gets away from all of that agenda. It means that a worker who is feeling a little intimidated can contact their union, the union can do it, management need never be the wiser as to whether it was Mary or Fred who did it, and the issue can be addressed. This bill, because of the government's ideas about unions and its desperation to get away from unions, takes away that kind of protection from employees—the protection of anonymity. We all know that, in certain circumstances where people are making complaints about something that matters to them, like their employment, anonymity can be a very useful thing. I say to this government: have a think—not looking through the ideological blinkers but looking through the real world view—about the mechanisms that people have for laying complaints. Have a think about whether having an employee's name flagged to a particular complaint—they could be quite grievous complaints about very important matters such as legionnaire's disease, exposure to asbestos, all of those sorts of things—is the best way to ensure that an employee who wants to complain anonymously can do so. Work out whether under your legislation, with the sidelining of unions, you have given them any capacity to do that.I conclude by saying that of course the foundation of this legislation in terms of relegating unions to a second-rate role is misconceived. The government's own data show that workplaces which have health and safety committees and are unionised are the ones which have the best health and safety records. Unions are positive when it comes to health and safety questions. Those are the facts, that is the end of it, and the government should be dealing with those facts, not dealing with its ideological obsessions. (Time expired)10:41:0026835St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10— I rise today to support the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Amendment Bill 2000. This bill will certainly bring some significant improvements for Commonwealth employees through safer Commonwealth workplaces, which is of vital importance to all of us. This bill contains amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991, which provides a legislative basis for the protection of the health and safety at work of Commonwealth employees in departments, statutory authorities and government business enterprises. It complements the compensation and rehabilitation arrangements established under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The Occupational Health and Safety Act requires amendments to modernise and streamline outdated provisions that are currently inhibiting its effectiveness. However, any additional flexibility in meeting obligations must be backed by a strong and effective enforcement regime.The amendments in the bill reflect the government's commitment to achieving safer workplaces and take account of advice from the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. The key amendments proposed to be Occupational Health and Safety Act by this bill relate to the employer's duty of care, workplace arrangements and penalties. In relation to the employer's duty of care, amendments are proposed to section 16 of the act to replace the current prescriptive elements of the section requiring an employer to develop an occupational health and safety policy and agreement in consultation with involved unions. Instead, employers will be required to develop, in consultation with their employees—which seems commonsense to me, with the employer and the employee being those who are conducting the business—safety management arrangements that will apply at the workplace. Employers and employees will be able to make informed decisions about how best to reduce any risks to workplace health and safety at their workplace. I know, coming from small business as I do, from an industry that has certainly changed over the years regarding occupational health and safety, that it was always important for the employer and the employees to get together to work out and make those decisions that really do reduce any of the risks there may well be in a workplace area. Safe and healthy workplaces can only be achieved if there is maximum commitment from both the employers and the employees. Employees will have the right to be represented in consultations with their employer by an employee association. A health and safety committee will be required to be established where an employer's work force comprises more than 50 employees. Again, a commonsense approach is being adopted. There must be a strong enforcement regime to ensure compliance with the requirements of the act. The less prescriptive approach being proposed to the employer's duty of care is therefore being balanced by the very important amendments to the penalties provisions to ensure an effective compliance regime. A wide range of remedies and sanctions is being introduced, along with significant increases in the penalty levels. Currently, all offences under the act are criminal offences. Even though there have been over 28,000 incidents reported under the act since its commencement in 1992, with 1,248 investigations, there have only been nine prosecutions, of which eight have been successful.The bill proposes to amend this enforcement regime to one based on both civil and criminal penalties for contravention of the act. Criminal penalties will be retained for contraventions of the act which result in death or serious bodily harm, or if the contravention is intentional or reckless, and for offences which are more appropriately dealt with in the criminal justice system. Courts will also be given the powers to grant injunctions to prevent the occurrence or recurrence of a breach of the act and to make remedial orders. Currently, the penalties under the act apply only to government business enterprises and their employees. The bill includes an amendment to extend civil and criminal penalties to Commonwealth employees and employees of Commonwealth authorities. This will ensure that a Commonwealth employee will be accountable where he or she has acted wrongfully. Again a commonsense approach is being taken to the amendments under this act. Commonwealth officers or employees, however, will have the protection of the Commonwealth's policy on indemnification where they have acted reasonably and responsibly in the course of their duties.The bill proposes substantial increases to the level of penalties in the act. Currently, the maximum penalty under the act for a breach of the employer's duty of care is $100,000. The new maximum penalty will be 2,200 penalty units, which currently equates to around $242,000, for a breach attracting a civil penalty, and 4,500 penalty units, which currently equates to $495,000, for a breach attracting a criminal penalty. These amendments will make the levels of penalties under the act more consistent with the levels of penalties in state and territory occupational health and safety legislation around Australia.In closing, in support of the amendments to the bill, I remind the House again of the importance of making sure that compensation and appropriate occupational health and safety are brought in on a commonsense basis. We have seen, particularly in the state of New South Wales, that workers compensation rates have got right out of control and certainly some industries are paying enormously exorbitant rates of workers compensation. Conversely, there needs to be a system in place to support and assist those people who have been injured, and of course all of us must do what we can to make sure that occupational health and safety is observed so as to make our workplaces as safe as possible. I commend the bill. 10:50:0026837Corcoran, Ann, MPMs CORCORAN009CWIsaacsALP00—I rise today to support many parts of the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Amendment Bill 2000. However, my main reason for speaking is to get on record my strong objection to the provisions in this bill which actually threaten workplace safety. I find this threat particularly obnoxious because it arises simply because this government is obsessed with attacking and trying to destroy unions. To threaten the health and safety of Australian workers simply to pander to such an obsession is just not acceptable. Parts of this bill are about trying to remove or reduce the legitimate activities of unions in the workplace associated with worker health and safety. The nationwide implementation of the occupational health and safety regime is one of the greatest improvements we have seen in workplaces here in Australia over the last two decades. This legislation threatens the success of this regime for 206,000 Commonwealth employees—that is, those employees of the Australian government, Telstra, Australia Post and the Defence Force, as well as of the ACT government. The threat comes from the attempt in this legislation to remove trade unions from taking part in OH&S arrangements.Over the last 20 years the Australian workplace has undergone massive restructuring and reform. The biggest industrial changes have included award restructuring, union amalgamations, the virtual elimination of demarcation disputes, the multiskilling of workers, widespread workplace education programs and the development and introduction of the social wage. Steadily progressing in and amongst all of this change has been the development of occupational health and safety in the workplace. This development is possibly the greatest industrial success story of the past 20 years. This achievement has been based on the structure and processes provided for in the Commonwealth government's OH&S system in Australia. This system is built on three main pillars. The first is the establishment of independent OH&S representatives. These representatives are elected free of employer influence and are therefore able to operate without fear of victimisation. They are empowered to raise issues referred to them by employees. Those employees can then, if they choose to, remain anonymous in the process and, consequently, not feel they may be subject to pressure from the employer. The second pillar is the set-up of OH&S workplace committees, and the third is a formalised consultative process—one which requires employers to sit down with the employee representative organisations.The importance of a decent OH&S environment cannot be overstated. The cost of an accident at work is not simply the immediate financial cost of the injured person's recovery, nor is it the dollars associated with any compensation paid out for suffering or death. At worst, an accident results in a death. When a person is killed or permanently removed from a workplace, the true cost of that accident also includes the cost of replacing that person at work. That cost includes the loss of the person's expert experience and knowledge of the workplace and the organisation. It includes the cost of replacing that employee, the cost of training and the cost of the new employee getting up to speed. More importantly, the true cost also includes the significant cost of the loss of that person from his or her family and from their community. This cost cannot usually be measured in terms of dollars, but that does not mean it is not important or that it is not real.The Productivity Commission in 1993 noted that the costs of work related injury and illnesses are significantly influenced by the extent and the effectiveness of preventative measures. Occupational health and safety best management practice notes that research has shown that workplace safety just does not happen by regulation by external agencies. It has been shown that the best way of ensuring a good OH&S environment is by acceptance and exercise of appropriate responsibilities by all levels within industry, by management initiatives and by involvement of employees in the workplace. In the course of the 1999-2000 year, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission contributed to the development of the second comparative performance monitoring report. That report, which was released in April 2000, includes a range of OH&S workers compensation and return to work indicators. The Commonwealth scheme has generally performed above the national average when measured against these indicators. The overall premium rate for the Commonwealth sector alone, which covers nearly 150,000 employees, is one per cent. That rate remains the lowest nationally. For instance, the rate in the ACT is 3.1 per cent and the rate in my home state of Victoria is 2.2 per cent. Of Comcare's customers, 74 per cent will pay a premium of less than one per cent for 2000-01. That is an improvement on 69 per cent of customers last year. In other words, the performance of the Commonwealth's workers compensation and occupational health and safety arrangements is one of below average cost and improving results. Based on this evidence, there is no case for reducing benefits for employees or for radical changes to the OH&S arrangements at the workplace.This OH&S legislation is inextricably linked to the safety, rehabilitation and compensation legislation, and the success of one depends on the other. In the associated legislation the government's stated objective has to do with:... balancing the costs of work related injury with access to fair compensation and effective rehabilitation for injured workers.If we are to believe that objective or to take that objective at face value, the proposals in this bill fly in the face of the government's intentions. Given the good track record of the Commonwealth workers compensation scheme, why would you change it? Sifting through the changes contained in these amendments reveals that not one iota of justification can be found. It only stands to reason that undermining the great progress already made in workplace safety will lead to a relapse in the reduction of accidents, injuries and deaths. The result: a greater cost to the public in future years due to required compensation payments and higher premiums, and the cost of the loss or impairment of a member of a family and a community.Every section of the existing legislation that mentions or provides for union representation of employees is repealed. The real reason for the proposed changes has more to do with the government's attitude to the union movement. This bill, if it is not amended, will remove union representatives from involvement in the legitimate protection of employee health and safety in the workplace. Unions have traditionally played an important role in OH&S in Australia. The Australian workplace industrial relations surveys of 1990 and 1995 show that only 19 per cent of workplaces without a union have a health and safety committee. This compares with 59 per cent of unionised workplaces. The survey also showed that a workplace is twice as likely to have undertaken a health and safety audit in the last 12 months if the workplace is unionised. This government just cannot bear to recognise that the union movement in Australia has been at the forefront, the cutting edge, of this dramatic improvement in workplace safety performance in this country. It cannot acknowledge that unions have put in the hard yards, worked with every designated work group and every piece of the jigsaw in Commonwealth workplaces, which when all put together totals a tremendous improvement in occupational health and safety.In introducing this bill, the then Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business declared that reporting under the proposed amendments will swing from a focus on process to a focus on outcomes. Discounting the importance of the process in this way displays a total misunderstanding of the very nature of OH&S. It is a process—an awareness raising process, an education process, an involvement and participatory process and a joint decision making process. OH&S has actually delivered the outcomes we are seeking because it is so strongly focussed on processes. Without proper processes, the qualities of the outcomes will diminish rapidly. The bill provides for the development of safety management arrangements in consultation with employees, but no process is specified with regard to meaningful consultation. In the Commonwealth Public Service and agencies, even senior managers are employees. Does the minister believe that management can sit down with a group of senior managers to decide on safety management arrangements without any grassroots input? The bill talks about consulting employees but does not spell out how this will happen. It does not say which employees will be consulted or how those employees will be chosen. It does not talk about whether or not those chosen will have any responsibility to their fellow employees in the consultation process. The bill does not even talk about any need for those chosen to consult to be trained in OH&S matters. It does not say much for the chances of good outcomes from the consultation process.The unions representing employees in the workplaces covered by the OH&S act have significant membership coverage. The government may not want to accept it, but unions are democratic organisations with processes that allow members to be actively involved in decision making and with provisions that make individuals who represent employees accountable to the membership. Where is OH&S expertise going to come from in the workplace if union representatives do not supply it? It is a big expectation to place on ordinary employees without any back-up, to ask them to not only identify and analyse health and safety problems but research and implement solutions as well.In conclusion, the intent of the bill is to exclude unions from OH&S consultations and thereby deny workers adequate and skilled representation on safety issues. The reason for this has nothing to do with good administration of OH&S but much to do with the government's paranoia about the union movement. Let us not undermine the very effective OH&S arrangements we have; let us not risk the lives and safety of employees in Commonwealth government workplaces for the sake of this paranoia.11:00:0026839Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Amendment Bill 2000 argues for more employer self-regulation for three reasons: that the employer should be freed from the current prescriptive approach, and therefore there should be a move away from process to outcomes; that the subsequent, less prescriptive approach should be counterweighted by a more punitive penalty regime; and that organised labour should be replaced by unorganised labour under the banner of freedom of association arrangements.Workers know from their own experience what self-regulation means. It means that employers get to choose what priority OH&S gets on their premises and in their businesses; that employees get marginalised through a tokenistic form of window-dressing consultation by a so-called `representative association'; and that the OH&S agencies get involved only at the level of prosecution and penalties. An illustration of how these amendments degrade the role of employees under the guise of freedom of association is found in the removal of recognition of unions and the substitution in their stead of representative associations—which is an explicit downgrading of employees' representation rights.Unions and representative associations are not like-with-like organisations. Unions are body corporates—legal entities—whose registration with the Industrial Registrar of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission equips them with certain enforcing powers and capacities on behalf of those they represent. Unions also very often have full-time resources and personnel dedicated to negotiating and advocating for OH&S issues and improvements and to supporting employees' OH&S representatives to give force to the duty of care required of employers. By contrast, representative associations are not organisations capable of enforcing anything. They can only exist at the largesse and sufferance of the employer and will depend upon the employer for any resources which would be begrudgingly extended to them. There is no way a representative association could deal with a recalcitrant employer who either refuses to provide for other than the minimum OH&S requirement—if that—or who refuses to honour those minimums. If these amendments are to be believed, all a representative association can do in such situations is await an accident or injury sufficiently serious to attract the attention and penalties of Comcare, and act as some form of witness.For all practical purposes, the representative association can have a standing no higher than that of any ad hoc staff association. To claim that such a degraded avenue of employee representation could make any employer accountable for their self-regulated, self-defined, minimalist OH&S responsibilities is a perversity. HIH and APRA stand as stark and fitting testimony to how this government conceives of self-regulation. Witness how begrudgingly this government has been dragged to an inquiry into the conduct of HIH and its collapse. If that is how the Howard government behaves when insurance is involved, how can we expect it to be any better with its own employees?On the question of self-regulation, we know what a joke it is when any industry is given self-regulation. We saw throughout 1999 the failings of the broadcasting industry, with the cash for comment inquiry which was headed by Professor David Flint, head of the ABA. He himself was so flawed that he went on the John Laws program to argue the no case in the debate with the referendum. He himself thought he had no conflict of interest when he appeared on that program. It makes a joke of any industry or situation when someone can regulate themselves.In summary, these amendments are a further step in the government's ideologically driven impulse to reduce third parties from active agents to passive observers. In the area of workers' workplace health and safety, that impulse is delinquent and reprehensible. The amendments on employee representation should be rejected. We all know what self-regulation has meant in the insurance industry, with HIH fiddling the books while the government regulator, APRA, watched from the sidelines. In other words, self-regulation means giving the lowest priority to standards and then only enough to avoid the sanction of penalties.The duty of care owed by employers to employees is the duty to provide not only a physically safe workplace but also an environment in which workers can carry out their work in accordance with safe working and injury minimisation policies, procedures and practices. These amendments degrade the responsibility of the government as an employer to construct and supervise a regime of employer duty of care and accountability for the safety of working conditions and the safe practices of their employees in their work. In the process, the confidence of employees in public third-party agencies—the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and Comcare—is lost. In fact, government business enterprises are licensed, at least implicitly, to deprioritise OH&S to the minimum necessary to avoid prosecution.The stated aim of these changes is to move away from processes to outcomes. This mistakenly confuses these two as alternatives, when each is inseparably a part of the other. For employees it is the very processes, procedures and practices of OH&S which actually materially and daily demonstrate to them not only that OH&S is taken seriously by their employer but also that they have an active role in the workplace safety of themselves and their fellow workers. To move from process to outcome effectively means moving from before-the-fact prevention to after-the-fact prosecution. This is unfair to workers. It means their safety is measured not by proactive policies, processes and practices aimed at avoiding accident and injury but by the accidents and injuries themselves. Prevention is sacrificed to a bottom line of avoiding prosecution. In summary, whilst supporting the bill in the main, in the area of self-regulation the opposition cannot support it—because we know from past experience how employers are only interested in themselves and in looking after their productivity and their profits and are not interested in the health, safety and wellbeing of their employees. Debate (on motion by Mr Tuckey) adjourned.Bills26841R1315BillsR1312BillsR1314BillsR1313BillsBills26841Debate resumed from 22 May, on motion by Mr Bruce Scott:That the bill be now read a second time.11:08:0026841Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—We are supporting the Compensation (Japanese Internment) Bill 2001, the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (One-off Payment to the Aged) Bill 2001, the Family and Community Services and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Further Assistance for Older Australians) Bill 2001 and the Taxation Laws Amendment (Changes for Senior Australians) Bill 2001 today, and why wouldn't we? We are supporting these bills because they give back part of what the Howard government has taken away through the savagery of its GST. Too many people in this community, particularly the elderly, have suffered too much hardship over the last 12 months and the four years prior to that. Today in these bills the government is giving back only part of what it has taken away. In a sense, this budget has been built on the suffering of too many Australians, and today the rewards are given back to too few Australians.When this government was elected five years ago, it said it would defend the battlers in our community. It has only created more battlers in our community, and that is particularly the case since the introduction of the GST. So many in our community on low and middle incomes have been squeezed. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle have been squeezed. When we have raised these questions in this House and around the country, the government has said how generous its compensation was for all Australians in the GST package. It said that it was generous for families and, in particular, it said that it was generous for the elderly. When we pointed out that the government was going to take back two per cent of the four per cent pension increase to compensate for its 10 per cent GST, the government said that there was no clawback.The government said that the GST compensation was generous. The government said that it was going to give all elderly Australians $1,000. The centrepiece of these four bills here today is that the government is giving back $300. What about all of those elderly Australians who were promised $1,000 by this Prime Minister? The passage of these bills today is an admission that the elderly of this country were dishonoured by the Howard government not only over the past 12 months but over the past five years. There are more measures that we will debate here today which put back some of those measures which were taken away in the first and second Howard budgets.We ought to be very clear: we enthusiastically support the measures in these bills today because they give back some—but only a small amount—of what the Howard government took away. When the Howard government went to the election and put its GST package, it did not tell people what was in the fine print. The Prime Minister went around the country and said that all pensioners would get $1,000. He did not tell them about the fine print; he did not tell them about the two per cent clawback from the four per cent pension increase. So forgive us if we say that we do not trust the government and forgive us if we say that we think there are hidden measures in here which may well mean that many Australians today who think they are going to receive a substantial benefit may well not receive that benefit—and that is particularly the case with the measures that the government has put forward for self-funded retirees. Self-funded retirees and pensioners have all been hit for six by the GST. On relatively low incomes, they spend a very high proportion of those low incomes on the necessities of life and, as we have said in this House on so many occasions, it is in the necessities of life where they have been pushed backwards by the GST—electricity and gas up in excess of 10 per cent. I do not know whether this Prime Minister pays an electricity bill and knows what it is like to pay for the necessities of life but, whether you are a self-funded retiree or a pensioner and whether you live in Brisbane, Cairns, Melbourne or Dubbo, you have been going backwards. That is why these bills today are desperately needed by the elderly, but the government is only giving back some of what has been taken away.Let me deal first of all with the $300 which will be given as a bonus to all elderly Australian pensioners. As I said before, this $300 bonus is simply too little too late because it is a one-off payment. Pensioners who will receive this have the GST as a life sentence; it goes on year in, year out. They know that when they go to the supermarket food prices are up dramatically, they know that their electricity and gas bills are up, and they know that one $300 payment is not going to make up for the burden of the GST for the rest of their lives. As I said before, hundreds of thousands of pensioners were promised $1,000. They want to know today where the other $700 is. Equally, they want to know when their two per cent pension clawback will be given back. The pension clawback short-changed single pensioners $7.90 and couples $13.20. All of this has to be seen in the context of the Howard government's treatment of the elderly.Time and again, the government come into this House saying, `We have introduced this marvellous piece of legislation which says that pensions must be 25 per cent of average weekly earnings.' What they neglect to say is that pensions have fallen below average weekly earnings on 12 occasions since they were elected. So that is the total record of this government: pensions have been constantly going backwards, culminating in the savage impact of the GST on living standards.As I move around this great country of ours, I talk to a lot of people who are well-off. What they frequently say to me is, `I am going OK, but my mum and dad are not. They are going backwards.' This is an issue which goes to the heart of the nature of this government, and it goes to the very heart of what sort of country we want to be in this century. That is why we say that this is not a budget for the new century. This is a budget which papers over the meanness of the last five years and gives back substantially less than was taken away, particularly from the elderly.Now I want to deal with the self-funded retirees, because there has been an enormous amount of inaccurate comment in the press today about who will receive benefits from the measures announced last night. I believe that inaccurate comment results from the government grossly exaggerating—and that is the kindest way I can put it—the benefits that will flow from some decisions contained in these bills. The bill I am dealing with here is the Taxation Laws Amendment (Changes for Senior Australians) Bill 2001. This bill lifts what is said to be the effective tax-free threshold for a self-funded retiree to $20,000. The government, of course, has neglected to tell anyone that in the last couple of weeks it gazetted an increase to $15,000 in that effective tax-free threshold, which is achieved by providing rebates. It did not tell anyone about that. It did not want anyone to know about it. That was another mean trick from this government. It wants people to believe that it has lifted the effective tax-free threshold from $12,000 to $20,000, when it has actually lifted it from $15,000-plus to $20,000. There is a big difference between $10,000 and $5,000, but I suppose the minister opposite cannot add up, so he would not know. So the increase in the effective tax-free threshold here is only $5,000. Now let us come to who is going to be the beneficiary of this. The lifting of the effective tax-free threshold is very welcome, but the government have deliberately created the impression that it is going to be accessed by all self-funded retirees. They have created that impression so strongly that in the press this morning we have reports that it is going to be accessed by people who are 55-plus. It is not. It is not going to be accessed by anyone between 55 and 65 years old. So all those self-funded retirees aged between 55 and 65 in our community who have got the impression, deliberately created by this government, that they are going to receive the benefit of an effective tax-free threshold of $20,000 are not going to get it. And they are already on the telephone today, extremely upset, because the government directly created the impression that this was going to be delivered to people who are 55-plus.What is this reminiscent of? It is reminiscent of the savings bonus, when the Prime Minister went around the country and said that everybody would get $1,000. He did not tell them about the sneaky, mean fine print he had in place which meant that, on that occasion, 40 per cent of those people got nothing. They flooded into our offices around this country, talking about the meanness and the trickiness of the Howard government. I suggest that we are about to have another episode just like that, with the lifting of this tax-free threshold, which is not going to go to anyone between the ages of 55 and 65 and is not going to go to anyone who has an income over $35,000. On our preliminary calculations, as few as one in 10 self-funded retirees will access this benefit. I hope many more self-funded retirees can access this benefit but, if you were examining the behaviour of the Howard government over the last five years, you would not hold out high hopes for that.So I challenge the government here today to publish the full figures, to establish who gets it, at what income level they get it and how much they will get. I want the government to come into this House this day and tell the parliament of this country how many are going to get it, what their ages will be and what their incomes will be. If they do that, at least those who are not going to get it will get to know that pretty quickly, instead of going through the pain and anguish of trying to establish who gets it and who does not because the government will not come clean about how many people are going to get it. So, today, in this debate, I call on the relevant minister in this government to come into this House and tell the parliament of Australia how many people are expected to get this, what their income level is and what they expect their benefit to be. Come into this House and be open. Let us have no more of this sneaky savings bonus behaviour and no more stonewalling. Come into the House and tell the parliament of Australia and the elderly of this country who is going to benefit.The other big furphy we had in the lockup last night was when the government went around and said to everyone, `Gee, we are generous: do you know what? We are going to backdate this measure.' Rebates are always backdated. That is how they work. So we had all the hype last night, with the Treasurer putting his hand on his heart and saying, `We are so concerned with the elderly that we have backdated the increase in the effective tax-free threshold.' They always backdate it. There is nothing new about that.That rhetoric really gets us through to what this is all about: when all is said and done, this is a government that is desperate to give itself a compassion facelift. It wants to somehow signal that it is born again with a social conscience. Last year was supposed to be the year of social policy in this country. It never turned out to be the year of social policy, because the government hit low income Australians and vulnerable Australians with the most savage hit that they have ever had in this country's history, thereby dramatically escalating the growing gap in this country between the rich and the poor. Through the imposition of that and its failure to implement genuine welfare reform, it has caused a flood of poverty in this country, causing a flood into my office of people on low incomes and particularly pensioners saying to me, `We can't make ends meet. We don't have any relatives. We don't have any friends up the road. How are we going to get by?' This is something that this government cannot understand. That bunch of millionaires opposite us—always in the pockets of the top end of town—who spend all of their time at the boardroom table and none of their time at the kitchen table just do not have a clue what it is like to live on a low income in this community. So forgive us for being sceptical about what the government is up to. We say to the people of Australia: `Look very closely at the fine print. In particular, have a very close look at how the government respond to my challenge in the House today for them to tell the parliament of Australia and the Australian people how much each self-funded retiree is going to get and how many will get it. See whether the sort of figures that we are talking about are correct or incorrect.' If they are correct, what we have is just another huge grab—government taking more than they portend to give—and more and more Australians becoming bitterly disillusioned with the parliament and the government of this country as a result. We support the measures in the self-funded retirees package. We just do not think that the government are being honest about what they are doing. This information should be available. If the government have costed it, as they have said, publish it and publish it today so that everybody can know what the government are up to.The next measure deals with the superannuation assets of people aged between 55 and 65. This repeals one of the most obscene bills that has ever been passed in this parliament and I say that is a terrific thing. This government some years ago decided that it was going to be so mean that it would make you, if you became unemployed at aged 55, spend your superannuation before you were entitled to any benefit. That is what it decided. Since that time, literally tens of thousands of Australians have had to use their superannuation assets which were meant for their retirement to literally survive. I have seen many of these people in my electorate absolutely bewildered that they could be so betrayed by the government of this country. Having been told to save for their retirement, once they have been made redundant or lost their jobs the government has the hide to come in and take away their superannuation before they are entitled to receive any support from the government. People who have worked hard for the country—people who have made this country what it is—have had that imposition for the last four or five years.I am absolutely delighted that the government has seen the error of its ways on this measure and has backtracked—but it has not backtracked out of conviction. Like in all of these measures, it has done so to save its political hide. But, for whatever reason it did it, we welcome this measure. It should never have occurred in the first place. I just wonder how the generation of people who have had their assets taken away are going to feel. Why were they consigned to this particular period in Australian political history where they were persecuted to the point of having their superannuation assets taken from them? I think the least that this government ought to do for them is to apologise or try and make some restitution to them, because their lives have been ripped apart by this savage, mean and nasty measure. I am delighted that it has finally bit the dust. We took a proposal to get rid of this to the last election and I am just delighted to see that the government has finally capitulated to our pressure and has got rid of this very nasty measure.This brings me to a couple more of the measures contained in the Family and Community Services and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (Further Assistance for Older Australians) Bill 2001. These measures deal with the extension of the telephone allowance to a further group of retirees and the lifting of the income limits for self-funded retirees. The opposition supports these measures, but I would make a number of points. The extension of these concessions has to be seen against the backdrop of government cuts over the last four or five years. The government is putting back just a fraction of the $750 million in cuts it inflicted in 1996 when this government axed free dental treatment, cut back free hearing aids and jacked up the cost of medicines bought on cards. The experience that we have had with this government is that, whenever it gives a benefit such as it is giving today, someone else pays—more is ripped out elsewhere. Last time, the extension of the benefits on the health card for the self-funded retirees was largely funded on the back of knocking off free hearing aids. So I fear that after this measure goes through we are going to see some more of that pain distributed around and someone else in the community is going to lose. We are supporting the measures for the lifting of the income limits, but I am sure that there will be many low income families out there on relatively modest incomes with a couple of kids who, when they see the new income limits, will think, `Well, we might like one of those, thanks very much.' I think that there is going to be a lot of people feeling like that and we may well have another debate flowing out of this.Having said all that, we are supporting these measures because they are so desperately needed. We are supporting these measures because this government have taken so much off the elderly in particular and because giving some of it back is the least they can do. The problem is what is in the fine print of these measures. I would like a government member to come into this House at some stage today and tell us the numbers of self-funded retirees who are going to really benefit from this $20,000 effective tax-free threshold. We need to know that because we have to end the uncertainty; we definitely need to know that. We have to see that fine print and we have to see what the real impact is.What is even more disturbing about the whole process we have been through in this budget is that I am just left with the absolute impression that the government are not doing this because they care for older people; it is just that they want their vote. If it was done out of conviction, we might be able to be a bit more generous to the government, but they have been dragged kicking and screaming to this position by the Australian people and the opposition. The members opposite were sitting in this House only months ago saying, `No such thing as clawback,' and, `The compensation package is absolutely generous.' If the compensation package has been so generous, why is this here today? If it has been so generous and people are swimming in money and doing so well in our community, why is this here today? It is here today because you are trying to give back a little of the massive amount that you have taken away. You went to the election with a package which claimed the inflation effect of the GST was going to be 1.9 per cent and you based all your compensation arrangements on a 1.9 per cent inflation rate. We are now into our third quarter of around six per cent inflation, and the budget papers claimed yesterday that it is going to wash out. You were saying it was going to wash out after the first quarter—and prices are still going up. This was the mob that was claiming that supermarket prices were going down—and they went up. You were going around the place saying basic groceries were going down in price; we have proved they went up. Hogwash Hockey was in here all the time talking about price cuts, when prices were going up at the supermarket. Hogwash Hockey was in here making claims about all these benefits, which never happened.10000Crosio, Janice (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Order! You will refer to `the minister'.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—The minister, Madam Deputy Speaker, was in here claiming all of these benefits, which never occurred. Low income Australians—families as well—pensioners and self-funded retirees have all been caught in this squeeze. They have far less than the compensation that you promised them. Forty per cent missed out on anything in the savings bonus at all. They got less on the compensation side and they have massive rising prices on the other. For many of the self-funded retirees the situation is also complicated by the fact that interest rates are going down. So these people are being caught in a squeeze of your making, which is why you have been dragged kicking and screaming to the position that you are in today. You have dishonoured the elderly of this country. They look forward to retirement as a reward, but the GST and the package associated with it for the elderly of this country has effectively meant double taxation. Then you turned around and doublecrossed them: you decided that you would tax them twice and then in the compensation package you would doublecross them. So you gave them double taxation and you gave them a doublecross. No wonder they got a bit cranky about all of that. Then you were too smart by half by putting all of these mean, tricky rules in the fine print, which basically meant that more and more of them missed out. So that is the environment in which these bills are before us today.Then we get to the welfare reform package, where the government have decided they are going to impose mutual obligation on the mature age unemployed, 50 and over, because they do not trust them either. In fact, they do not actually trust any of the Australian people. I think they would want to sack them if they got the chance. They are so out of touch: they bring in measures which are so out of touch with community opinion and they think it is possible that they can politically dud the elderly, a group who have been so loyal to them on the conservative side of politics. They decide they will give them a double beating for that! Now, justifiably, those people are walking away from them in droves because they do not like to be dishonoured. It is just not a question of money, as important as it is; it is actually a question of respect. Sadly, through the budget package, your actions over the last five years and your actions today, you really demonstrate that you do not have that respect for the elderly in our community. As for the people who have worked their hearts out to make this country what it is today, you have simply dishonoured them and then you have turned around and fleeced them financially. That is why we have ended up in the position in which we are here today. Then you turn around to the mature age unemployed and say you are going to impose a mutual obligation on them. What is next? Is work for the pension the next agenda of the next Howard government? Is that what they are going to do?1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr Billson—He's good, isn't he? He thinks every meeting of the House is a branch meeting of the Labor Party, so he winds up with this garbage again.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Dunkley will have his chance on the next call.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—I spend a lot of time out there in the community, my friend, and I can tell you that they are no friends of yours. We do support the very speedy passage of these bills. On the final bill we support the payment of the $25,000 to those former POWs in the Japanese theatre of war. That is an excellent measure and we support that thoroughly.0V5Slipper, Peter, MP2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—I had a father who fought in that theatre, thank you very much. That sort of comment from the other side of the chamber is just another example of their complete disregard and disrespect. I will not go into that, but we support this measure enthusiastically, just as we support all of the other measures; we just do not think that any of them, particularly the ones that I spoke about earlier, are being done out of any conviction at all. They are just being done to save your miserable political hides, which is a very sad thing, because, if we as a parliament want respect, why don't we give it? The problem that has come about in recent times is that we have not respected the elderly. We have not honoured the elderly; we have effectively done the reverse.It takes a political earthquake to get this government to move. If you had been listening to the parliament over the last 12 months, you would have been introducing these measures well before now. You have had to be pushed kicking and screaming into this House by the opposition and the Australian people to show the most minimal amount of respect in the first place. You have had to be drawn to this kicking and screaming. But we enthusiastically support these measures. We enthusiastically support these measures because at least they give back a little bit of the so much that you took away. When the epitaph of the Howard government is written, it will have as its signature: the Howard government said it would come to power to defend the battlers. What in fact it did was create many more of them. The Howard government said it would come to power to implement a fair taxation system. What in effect it did was implement a taxation system which was strong in taxing the weak and weak in taxing the strong. It said it would bring new standards to the parliament. Instead, it has brought the parliament into disrespect by the sorts of processes we have been through today. We enthusiastically support these bills; they just do not reflect political credit on the government.11:38:0026847Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10— We are used to the member for Lilley demeaning himself, but he has demeaned the parliament today and he has demeaned the 15,000 senior citizens in my electorate of Dunkley with what can only be described as more of the diatribe that people expect from the member for Lilley—diatribe that he has been pushing right around this country. But did you hear anything about what the Labor Party would do? Not a thing. There was a time in this place when the opposition stood up and had something to say, when they were not pretending that this parliament was a branch meeting of the Labor Party at which they could run around with these half-baked stories and untruths and substitute them for considered policy input. There was a time when people like Bill Hayden would stand up and make their point. They would have a proposition, they would have an alternative. They would not smirk and slip out like the member for Lilley is doing after his atrocious contribution, which demeaned this parliament. It demeaned him—we expect that—but it also demeaned those senior Australians we are discussing in the debate on the Compensation (Japanese Internment) Bill 2001 and cognate bills before the parliament today.Let me run through some of the issues. You heard him say, `The government is going to backdate some of these measures. Well, they've always been backdated.' What the people listening might not realise is that the budget used to come down in August. When the budget came down in August and the measures started for that financial year, it went back to July. That was because the budget came down in August. We now do budgets in May, which means that if we are backdating something it is backdated the whole year—not a couple of months to the start of the financial year to which the budget relates. So that is another crystal clear example of how the member for Lilley operates. Either he is completely incompetent or he sets out to deceive and mislead Australians.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Both.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—It is probably both. He stood up and he talked about food prices and the GST grocery bag. For those that do not come here very often or do not listen to the parliament very often—probably because the member for Lilley demeans this institution with his contributions—we have heard about his `Lilley Watch' where he has gone around and looked at supermarket prices. Do you know what has happened? They are not published anymore because they showed savings at the supermarket checkout as a result of tax reform. You do not hear about them anymore. He talked about the price of food. He did not mention the floods in New South Wales and what that does to the price of food. He failed to mention that food is not taxed. There is no GST on food; we have actually taken input taxes, wholesale sales taxes, off the production of food. He comes in here again trying to mislead the Australian people as a substitute for policy contribution. These guys sit over there and they smirk amongst themselves. They are so triumphant about their incredibly committed and obvious transition to government at the next election, for which they do not have to do anything. They fight amongst themselves about the spoils of potential victory and they offer zip—absolutely zip.In that diatribe from the member for Lilley, you would have heard him say on three occasions that they actually support what we are doing. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Strongly support.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—Strongly support, enthusiastically support—and then off he goes with this drivel. I am surprised that the House of Representatives staff have not had to clean the podium—it was just appalling. He says, `We're going to support it.' He says it very quietly so that when people ask, when people out there are confused by what sounded a lot like opposition, he can actually say, `No, no—we support these measures.'Let me talk about some other issues that the member for Lilley touched on. He was saying that the tax reforms have done unspeakable damage to senior Australians. Isn't that an interesting thought? He talked about the pension adjustments. He did not mention the fact that they were adjustments paid in advance. Forecasting the impact of the changes, the government said, `There is an impact here. Let us compensate those people in advance.' In advance—not like the normal pension adjustments that occur after price increases have been recorded so that there is a period during which people have had to accommodate the price increases and then they are compensated for it down the track. That is what the Labor Party used to do. With this package, we were compensating people in advance, forecasting the impact. You did not hear him mention that, did you? You did not hear him talk about that Dawkins budget where every wholesale sales tax rate went up by two per cent. Petrol taxes went through the roof. This word `compensation' is new to the Labor Party. When they slugged every Australian—particularly low income Australians, who buy most of the products that have wholesale sales taxes on them—when those wholesale sales taxes were put up by the Labor Party, this word `compensation' was not even in the Labor Party vocabulary. They just slugged the people with those tax increases, and there was no compensation. And they come into this place saying, `Isn't this horrendous! This compensation package—that's right, that's something we never did when we were in government—was paid in advance; oh, that's something else that we never did when we were in government.' This compensation package included a buffer of two per cent to make sure that, even if our forecasts were wrong, pensioners and low income earners and people on income support were not going to be disadvantaged—another thing the Labor Party did not do when they were in office. They say, `Oh, isn't this terrible!' What a nonsense! The member for Lilley demeans this place; he demeans this parliament.Here is another example. He was talking about the tax treatment for self-funded retirees. When the Howard government was elected, self-funded retirees started paying tax on the first dollar after $5,400. That was not the case for pensioners, though. The pensioners had an extended tax-free threshold. Our first measure was: let us not discriminate against those people that have provided for their own retirement by having a tax regime which has greater impositions on them than it would had they not provided for their own retirement and were receiving the pension. Our idea was a straightforward idea: let us not discriminate to the disadvantage of those people who have provided for their own retirement; let us at least make sure that self-funded retirees are taxed in the same way as pensioners and part-pensioners. So we fixed that—instalment No. 1.What was the member for Lilley's next criticism? That we are actually extending that so there is further incentive for those people who provided for their own retirement. And his big killer punch is, `Now there is $20,000.' Gee, that is not a huge increase! The subtext: you guys have already done so much to improve this in the past. That is his big killer punch. Because we have recognised the disadvantage the tax system imposed upon self-funded retirees and have done something about it, he is arguing that this additional benefit is not as great as it would have been. What a nonsense. He is right to say, though, that if the Labor Party were still in government self-funded retirees of pensionable age would still be paying tax on their 5,401st dollar. Now they will pay tax after 20 grand. That is almost $15,000 extra income that self-funded retirees can earn as individuals before they start paying tax, compared to where they were when the Labor was in power, and the member for Lilley stands up and says, `Gee, this benefit is not as big as it could have been, because you guys have adjusted this on the way through.' What a nonsense. The member for Lilley demeans this parliament, he demeans himself and he demeans the 15,603 senior Australians living in my electorate. Let us talk a little bit more, though, about what is actually in this package. In the explanation of how the member for Lilley has sought to deceive the Australian people I have illustrated some of the advantages in this budget. This is a budget of targeted spending that responds to specific local concerns I have been happy to raise with the government on behalf of my constituents, but it also makes a further investment in the longer term plans and strategies of our country that will strengthen our social fabric. Is that not a purposeful budget? You have heard people stand up and say, `Hey, this is a pre-election budget.' I do not think that is fair, because you would have to compare it with the pre-election budget in 1995-96 when the Keating government were trying to save their skins. What did they do? They had an absolute spending spree. They went to the Commonwealth Bankcard and spent $10.3 billion more trying to save their sorry hides in that last year—$10.3 billion more than they had raised to pay for it.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—And we had to fix it.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—And we had to fix it. Thank you. A $10.3 billion spending spree, throwing money around to save your sorry hides that someone else has to pay for down the track—that sounds like a Labor Party election budget. What have we got here with the Liberal-National Party budget? Not only are all of these things paid for—there is no bouncing the bankcard here—but also we are in fact paying off more of that Labor Party debt: $60 billion of the $80 billion the Labor government racked up when it was in office last time. It is a thought that will give a lot of people sleeping problems, if it ever got back. We have paid that off. We are paying more off here. That does not sound like recklessness. That sounds like responsible government; that sounds like sound economic management delivering us the capacity to do targeted things that matter to our nation not only today but into the future.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Health and education.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—Health and education, the innovation statement and further investment in education. We are looking at five new targeted programs for the family health initiative. This is a great budget. We are rebuilding our defence forces and paying for it not on the Visa card but as we go, with a budget surplus and paying off Labor debt— and over there they have got the hide to talk about this being some sort of election budget. This is sensible, responsible government in action.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MP1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—And we are even fixing Kim Beazley's dodgy subs. The Labor Party have a go at us about the Australians Working Together package, the welfare reform package. What is wrong with investing $1.7 billion over the next four years to make sure that those people who at the moment are not fully engaged in the work force in our community are given every opportunity to do so? What is wrong with that? That is a moral obligation of responsible budgeting. What does the member for Lilley propose? He said nothing. I suppose he just wants these 800,000 Australians to be written off from our community—to sit over there and receive their income support—and to not make any effort whatsoever to help those people re-engage in our nation. Is that his plan?CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—He wants to scare them to death.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—That is what he does. He is a bulldust creator and a dusk kicker, and he is going around trying to terrify Australians, when we are saying to these people: `We know all Australians have a capacity. Let us work with you.'I have been asked to wrap up in a hurry. I will. Thank you, Mr Whip. But I would like to make one point, and I would like to dedicate it to Bill Coventry, Ray Wheeler and all of the prisoners of war. What a horrendous experience to have been interned by the Japanese during the war, either as a civilian or as service personnel. In my community alone I know of 20 prisoners of war. I know that their mortality rate is six to seven times higher than any other person interned during a conflict. The brutality and the suffering they endured has seen them find places in their souls and question humanity in ways that I cannot even imagine. I cannot even imagine what they have been through. Some of the dearest friends I have try to explain that to me and it is too difficult for them, so we do not go there. But where we are going today is saying: `We understand that. For you—the war widows, the civilian detainees—we are going to recognise your suffering, and we are going to make sure that everyone understands what you have done and the contribution you have made to this great country.' That is in the budget as well, and I think that is a terrific way of showing the Australian community that sound financial management creates possibilities for good policy. There are bucket loads of good policy in this budget. I am delighted to support these bills before the House and the budget and the Howard government, because they are doing good things for our country.11:51:0026850Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I rise to speak on the Compensation (Japanese Internment) Bill 2001, Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (One-off Payment to the Aged) Bill 2001, Family and Community Services and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Further Assistance for Older Australians) Bill 2001 and Taxation Laws Amendment (Changes for Senior Australians) Bill 2001. Whomever said that you cannot get blood out of a stone was wrongwrong because we now see a government that have had a heart of stone suddenly bleeding, not because of compassion or care or concern for the people that they have hurt since they introduced the GST but because they are about to get thrown out of office, and deservedly so. The government are bleeding because they are desperate to hang on to power and, as desperate as they are, they know that this budget is not going to save them. They are desperate because they know that people out there in the community are hurting: people on low incomes, people on fixed incomes, elderly Australians, Australians on pensions, Australians who are battling and Australian families who are going backwards, as many of the more recent surveys have shown us.This is a cynical budget from a desperate government. If ever you wondered how desperate things were, you had only to listen to the desperation in the voice of the last speaker—a desperate man, from a desperate government, with a desperate Prime Minister and a desperate Treasurer, trying to find a way out of the hole that they have dug for themselves. You would have thought that, if this budget was so good, the previous speaker would have spent his whole 10 minutes talking about how good it was. But, no, he did not do that. He got into the gutter. He wanted to kick the member for Lilley because the member for Lilley hurts them—he brings into this place, as do many other members from this side of the chamber, the concerns, the worries and the hurt that people out there in our community are feeling. No wonder this is a desperate government! They have just brought down a desperate budget and, I might say, a cynical budget. It is from a government which has mugged the economy, mugged many elderly Australians on the way through and, of course, mugged many small businesses.Having said those things, there are some good things in this budget—things that we welcome and things that we will be able to build on after the next election when we sit on the other side. And sit on the other side we will, because this is undoubtedly the last budget that this Treasurer and this government will bring down—the last opportunity for them to mug the people of Australia.There are a couple of things that I want to talk about in a bit more detail. The first of these is the promised $300 adjustment for eligible pensioners—people who, in the words of the Treasurer, `qualify'. I want to urge those people out there who think they qualify to watch this debate closely and, the moment this legislation is passed, to get out there and get their $300 before it disappears in the same way that the $1,000 that was promised to every pensioner in this country disappeared. I would like to know what the Prime Minister did with it. He has taken $1,000 away, on the one hand; on the other hand, he has given $300 back. If that is not a cynical move, I do not know what is. I can tell you this: the people of Australia—the seniors and many elderly people who have stuck by this government over a long period of time—have deserted the government in droves, and this mean-spirited attempt by the government to win them back is simply not going to work. But that $300 will mean a lot to a lot of our battlers out there. It is not going to cover the cost of the GST. I do not know just what those members opposite think the impact of the GST has been on a lot of low income earners, a lot of people on fixed incomes, a lot of battlers, but they are hurting. I have no doubt, Madam Deputy Speaker Crosio, that those people are coming into your office in droves as they are coming into my office, some of them very proud people who have been independent all their lives and who are now finding it impossible to make ends meet because of the way this government has mugged them. If the $1,000 was good enough when the Prime Minister said that every pensioner was going to get $1,000, it ought to be good enough now. But we know that he is not a man of his word. We know just how mean and tricky this government is.One of the things I want to talk about is the compensation for the POWs, and that is something that I and every other Australian would applaud. But what a great tragedy it is that so many of those men and women have had to wait so long for this compensation. It is something previous governments can look back at and say, `This is something that we should have done earlier.' That this was not done earlier is a disappointment that both sides of politics ought to share. So many of those POWs who came home, and their families, could have done with this money a lot earlier. I am pleased that the government has extended this compensation payment to the widows, because many of those widows had to look after men who were ill, who were incapable of looking after themselves and who themselves had indeed to battle to get just recognition for the injuries, the traumas and the stresses that they brought home with them—stresses and injuries that some of them could not shed. So I welcome this $25,000 payment. I am not quite sure of the exact details of it, but it is something that I will look at more fully.One of the things that does concern me a bit is that it seems to me that the payment is not totally tax free. I am not sure what the deeming arrangements are, but if we are going to give this payment to these POWs and civilian internees, we should make sure that every last cent of it is tax free. The other thing that I am a bit concerned about is the fact that we see a bit more division creeping in here in that the POWs from the Asian areas are going to get the money but the POWs from Germany, Crete and other countries are not going to get that $25,000 compensation.I have not heard a single word from the minister as to why he has created this division amongst the ranks of the POWs. It seems to me that, if you were taken prisoner and if you served as a POW, then you ought to be justly entitled to the compensation. What is the difference between being held somewhere in Europe—perhaps in Auschwitz, as I know some Australians, unfortunately, were, but they are not entitled to the compensation—and being held in Asia? This division which is being created within the veteran community is of some concern to me. We can see it here with this compensation payment, and we see it in another measure that the government announced just before the budget, and that is the division which has now been created in the ex-service community with the nasho's medal. I do not know what the cost of that medal is, but I have some very good mates who are nashos and they are shaking their heads because, for the first time ever, men who served together overseas, men who suffered together and men who died together are now going to be treated separately. It is just another example of the division that this government has created in the ex-service community. I welcome the nashos getting a medal, but I want to look at the fine detail as to how it is going to be awarded. But that is the least of our worries. My concern goes to those people out there in my electorate, those Australians who, as I said earlier, have been mugged by this Prime Minister, lied to by this Prime Minister and deceived by this Prime Minister—people who took him at his word and people who cannot take him at his word ever again. All of the promises, all of the things he says he will do when he gets out there and throws his arms about and says, `Yes, we care, we are concerned, we are sympathetic'—the average Australian is not going to cop that anymore because they know that this Prime Minister has lied to them in the past and they know that they cannot trust him in the future. In the meantime, on behalf of all of my battlers, all of my pensioners, all of my ex-POWs, I will stick my hand up for the money that is there, because they need it and they deserve it. As desperate as this government is, we are going to make sure that this time the Prime Minister is true to his word and that these payments flow through to those people.12:02:0026852Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am happy to support the range of measures that has been introduced in the Compensation (Japanese Internment) Bill 2001 and related bills in connection with this year's budget—the sixth budget of this government and the fifth consecutive cash surplus. In other words, we are in a position where a responsible government using economic policy is able to pay for its commitments to the Australian people and not borrow against the future, which was, of course, the hallmark of the failed Hawke-Keating years. This is a government which has been listening—and continues to listen—over its time in office. Moreover, it is not just listening but also acting on the genuine concerns within the community and addressing some of the great wrongs of the past, the great inadequacies in compensation to people who were prisoners of war, to provide those who helped build this nation over its first 100 years of nationhood with a symbolic gesture of thanks, a gesture of understanding and a gesture of support from the great body of us taxpayers who were not part of those generations that struggled and that now find themselves in their later years of life.Of course, a budget is not the entire process of a government's activity. A budget each year is a line in the sand, it is a signal of intent, it is part of the process of running the country in a proper way. When we look at some of the commentary that has occurred overnight and this morning amongst the media gallery, it is important to note that we are, as a government, being judged by the standards expected of governments under the previous Labor government. This is certainly a government that cannot be judged by Labor's own poor standards. The Australian Labor Party was a group in government that used to say many things before elections and then proceed to ignore all of those things after elections—the l-a-w tax cuts were certainly examples of that. This government, I believe, has a hallmark which, very simply, is that it says what it intends to do before an election and commits itself to its execution after that election. It delivers on what it has said, in other words—the Senate notwithstanding. In fact, in the legislation that is before us this morning we are delivering on things before an election and introducing measures that will make it possible for certain things to happen in a retrospective way in the current taxation year. Certain things are in fact going to be improved for older Australians in the current taxation year. How can we do that? How can we afford that? Why is it different from last year's budget? Now we have the numbers in on what the new taxation system generates, we can, through proper economic management, afford the things in this package of bills that we are considering. We as a nation can make the payments to effect this legislation today. We are not borrowing, we are not saying, `Vote for us and it will happen in a year or two'; we are in fact making the payments available today.The people of Australia should have a great deal of faith in an administration that in fact has achieved this against the background of Labor's $80 billion deficit—that is, borrowing more over a series of budgets, over a series of years, clocking up debt, not repaying that debt and making others pay. Guess what? The taxpayers of today are paying for the Hawke-Keating years of the 1980s and early 1990s. The taxpayers of today are meeting the reckoning of still repaying the debt that was clocked up last time the Australian Labor Party was in government. To the great shame of those opposite, as this government has attempted to bring in a lot of different measures over its time in office, the Australian Labor Party has set out to sabotage, at every juncture, every worthwhile measure that we have brought forward. In fact, on matters as diverse as the new tax system, everything I have ever had anybody complain to me about has come because the Labor Party and the Democrat alliance over in the other place has perverted the government's promise to the people of Australia. The things we promised before the last election that could not be delivered during this time in office have come about as a result of the changes in the other place.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—They took away simplicity.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—They did take away simplicity. The parliamentary secretary is quite right. All the difficulties that are in the tax system today can be sheeted home quite rightly to the trickery of those opposite who have embarked upon a deliberate process of sabotage of good policy outcome in this country—even down to matters such as unfair dismissal. There are 50,000 Australians who do not have a job today because the Australian Labor Party has followed its union masters on 10 occasions and voted down that legislation. Today, the Australian Labor Party have signalled that they will pass these measures and will give the government the support it needs to ensure a quick passage of these bills and to ensure that these right measures contained in the overall budget can be delivered before the end of the current financial year. In other words, we are going to see instant action for many Australians.With regard to the $25,000 payment to Australians who were Japanese prisoners of war, I am of a generation that has never gone to war. In my youth, as a young subteen I was affected by the Vietnam War. The concept of facing conscription later in life really loomed large in my psyche. I was pleased to see the end of the compulsory utilisation of our youth in the defence of our country because, as a subteen, I was fairly frightened of the prospect. I do not mind confessing that because I am in total awe of and feel an absolute sense of great obligation to those who have served this country. The many veterans in my community I think understand that—I certainly hope they do. There are still living in the electorate of Moreton only a couple of dozen people who were prisoners of war and I know that there are fewer than 100 widows of former prisoners of war. For those people, I am delighted with what this budget has brought forward. It is not the big things that matter in this job; it is the little things, and each individual person is so important. The $25,000 payment to Australians who were Japanese prisoners of war is something that the RSL has sought for some time and the government has responded. It is a one-off payment, it will be non-taxable, it is exempted from the income test applied to the service pension or any other Centrelink income support payment and it will not be affected by the assets test. If the money is put into the bank and interest is earned, that may have an impact on those sorts of pensions. That would be understandable because it would be new income, but the $25,000 is theirs. It is not much. It is probably far too little too late. When you consider a lifetime of suffering and, in the case of widows of those prisoners of war, a lifetime of putting up with all the stresses and strains and, as the member for Dunkley said, the things that we really do not want to visit as far as the way prisoners of war may have reacted to their time of internment, $25,000 is not much, but at least it is an acknowledgment of their contribution, albeit very late in the piece. It is a great shame that both sides of politics did not deal with this 50 years ago.With regard to the lump sum payment of $300 to all of those people who are on an age pension or part pension, this is an acknowledgment from the government that they too need to be thanked and acknowledged, that they too need to feel a sense of dividend, a return on the investment they have put into this country, in particular over the last couple of years as the government have worked hard to repay the Australian Labor Party's debt and to cut deep into budget matters in order to afford the repayment of this big debt. During our time in office, the government have taken things from a point where the interest repayment on our debt position as a government was equal to the defence budget. There was a payment of $10.5 billion or thereabouts each year in the form of interest, as a result of the way those opposite ran the country. We have now managed to reduce debt from $80 billion down to $20 billion and we have been able to reduce that debt interest repayment factor in the budget. So it is good to pay a dividend to people who have paid part of the cost of meeting those achievements. This is not a government that is working on figures on the bottom line alone; this is a government that is dealing with individuals, is listening and acting and understands those who have saved for their retirement. Self-funded retirees in my community should be able to take away some of the pressure of financial management in later life. We have increased the effective income tax free threshold for self-funded retirees and pensioners to $20,000 for a single person and $32,612 for a couple, effective immediately. They are in so many ways the unsung heroes of our society. They are the ones who make it easier for government to provide for those who have not been able to save for their retirement. It is only right that self-funded retirees be given that recognition and that sort of assistance by the government.We have also increased the Medicare levy threshold to the same amount, which means that, until they have $20,000 in income, not only are they not paying tax but also they are not paying the Medicare levy, which is a marvellous achievement from a government which understands the importance of reward for effort. I would like to think that, in the next term of this government, we will look to extending that style of reward for effort through further modification of the personal income tax system so that more people can understand that they are getting greater reward for effort and paying less government tax. I would like to think that that is one of the things we will be aspiring to do. Certainly one of the things I will be advocating will be to increase that tax free threshold for all Australians to a higher level, because it is important.More Australians are going to get the seniors health card. The threshold for singles is now $50,000 and $80,000 for couples. That means an extra 50,000 Australians will be able to obtain the seniors health card and there will be a telephone allowance of $17.20 per quarter. If you contrast that with what those opposite left—a tax free threshold of $5,400 under Labor and $20,000 under the coalition—that is a good example to self-funded retirees that we care, we listen and we act. It is a fantastic example to all Australians that, in the next term of this government, we will be focusing on providing a similar style of dividend to them. I commend the bills to the House.12:14:0026854Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—Firstly, let me compliment the initiative to pay POWs and civilian detainees from the Pacific theatre $25,000. I join with my colleague the member for Cowan in his comments about the tardiness of this response and the fact that it should have been addressed many years ago by previous governments—that is, governments of both political persuasions. So I am pleased to be able to support it.I think it is worth acknowledging by those of my generation whose parents or relatives—in my case my father and his brothers—served in the Pacific theatre that many of their colleagues never came back. It is interesting and tragic to note that, of the 22,000 Australians who were captured in the Pacific war, 36 per cent or 8,031 of them died in captivity. Perhaps the centenary of our Federation is an appropriate time to remember the contribution that these Australians made for us 60 years ago. As the member for Cowan pointed out, we should also be wanting to recollect that no less a sacrifice was made by other Australians in the European theatre and around the Mediterranean, yet this legislation does not acknowledge them. This will cause a division which need not be caused in the ranks of returned service men and women and returned prisoners of war. What is the purpose of this artificial division? A large number of Australians, members of the AIF, were captured in North Africa, 2,000-plus were captured in Greece and 3,100-plus were captured in Crete. Why are they of less value in terms of recognition for their service as prisoners of war than those who served in the Pacific theatre? We do not need this artificial division. I ask the government to reconsider its position and extend this generous offer, this generous payment, to all ex-POWs and civilian internees regardless of where they were imprisoned or interned. That would seem to me to be something which the Australian community would say was fair and reasonable and also warranted. I say to the government that this needs to be taken further. I also note the comment made by the member for Cowan on the question of deeming: whether or not this payment will attract tax at some point during its life in the hands of its recipients. It ought not at any point attract tax. Whether it is invested in a bank or anywhere else, it should be free from taxation. If someone goes out and spends it today, that is a choice. They also have the choice of investing it, and we should not see them penalised because they make that choice.I also want to make comment about other aspects of this legislation, and specifically the $300 payment, this bonus which, as the shadow minister has pointed out, is too little and too late. For pensioners and for all Australians, the GST is not a one-off tax; as the shadow minister said, it is a life sentence. Its impact upon Australians of all levels is greater or smaller depending where you live. I welcome the fact that the government is now repudiating the absurd $1,000 which was never delivered to the people it promised it would deliver it to, and that now it is gratuitously giving back $300. We welcome this, but it does not go far enough. If you live in the electorate of the Northern Territory, you know for a start that you have higher costs of living than people living in other parts of Australia. In February 1999 I had cause to make comment about this fact as it affected people living in remote parts of the Northern Territory. Imagine yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a pensioner living in north-east Arnhem Land. At that time a vegetable basket of goods that cost an average of $100 in capital cities across Australia cost $212 in north-east Arnhem Land. The GST, of course, is a regressive tax, so the more things cost you the more tax you pay. So people living in outlying areas in regional Australia, where costs are higher, pay more GST than other Australians. It follows, does it not, logically and inevitably, that if you are a pensioner living in these parts of Australia you are paying more tax as a result of the GST than your counterparts who live elsewhere in Australia. This is a con. Welcome as it is, it goes no way towards addressing the long-term impacts of the GST on the lives of pensioners, regardless of where they live, and most particularly on the lives of those people living in remote and regional areas, where the costs of living are so much higher than they are for people living elsewhere in Australia. I just make that observation.It is instructive for me to see people in this place representing electorates in Sydney and Melbourne raising it as a grave concern that the price of fuel is approaching a dollar. They rightly say that this impacts upon the quality of life of people living in our community, particularly pensioners and other low income earners. A dollar! Just imagine what its impact is when the price of fuel is $1.80 or $2 a litre, which is the case in some parts of Northern Australia.There is nothing in this budget to alleviate the stupendous costs that the GST imposes on these Australians. This one-off $300 is welcome but it is a momentary cause of some euphoria. When people get the $300 in the mail, it will be used—there is no question about that—but it will go no way to paying the compensation that is required for the negative impacts of this horrific, regressive tax on people who live in remote and rural Australia and who are pensioners and low income earners. I recall that when the government came to power it said that it was going to defend the battlers. It has not defended the battlers in my electorate—it has crucified them. It has not defended the pensioners in my electorate—it has crucified them. It said that it was going to introduce a fair tax. It is not a fair tax. It creates division and alienation. It is a direct result of policies brought forward by the government—by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. We are seeing the top end of town being rewarded and the poorer in Australia—the strugglers and the battlers—being penalised. It is not a fair tax. Whilst I welcome the recognition by the government, partial though it is, through the proposals before us this morning, of the negative impacts of the GST, it has a long way to go. And if it thinks that in regional Australia these measures are going to turn around the negative sentiment towards the government and the GST, it is sadly mistaken.12:24:0026856Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I am delighted to have an opportunity to support in particular the Compensation (Japanese Internment) Bill 2001. I am delighted at the speedy process that has been put in place to deliver some of the announcements made last evening in the 2000-01 budget. I would like to spend most of the time that is available to me to speak about some of the experiences that prisoners of war of the Japanese went through. It is very close to my heart. Three uncles of mine found themselves in the 8th Division—Uncle Herbert, Uncle Jack and Uncle Hughie—and, of the three, only Uncle Hughie returned. He never spoke about his experiences, but one could always tell that they were harrowing.The Mildura region in the division of Mallee was the source of a large number of enlisted men to the 8th Division, which found itself in Singapore in 1942. I want to speak about one particular prisoner of war whom I have spoken to this morning to give him the news about the announcement last night. There are only 23 prisoners of war of the Japanese left in the division of Mallee, when once there were many hundreds, and there are only three war widows who will benefit from the restoration of their war widows pension. I think it was the member for Moreton who said that sometimes in budgets there is more in small matters than in big matters. Those 23 prisoners of war of the Japanese living in Mallee are delighted with the news.Neil Collinson is an 87-year-old such veteran—a dear friend of my late father—who found himself in Singapore in 1942 in the 4th Antitank Battalion of the 8th Division of the Australian Imperial Forces, having enlisted with my three uncles. He was a great Scottish piper in the pipe band, and my father was president of the Mildura District Pipe Band for 25 years—hence their strong relationship as mates. He sailed in 1940, was captured in 1942 and found himself incarcerated in Changi prison at the hands of the Japanese. He has subsequently written a book in his retirement twilight years. He has called it Kicking with the Wind. It is inspiring to read of the harrowing experiences that prisoners of war like him went through. Such was the compassion that he had learnt by being part of that that Neil Collinson spent 35 years as the veterans welfare officer of the Red Cliffs RSL. Red Cliffs was a soldier settlement district of World War I and is still the home of many veterans. Lex Milne is another similar veteran and he is a great friend of my family. Lex used to prune my vine property for many years and looked after me, an absent landlord, in that role. I am delighted for Lex that this news has now been received by him.I note that the member for the Northern Territory has raised the question about the distinction between prisoners of war—between those at the hands of the Germans or Axis forces throughout Europe and North Africa and those interned by the Japanese. My father found himself in the 9th Division of the Australian Imperial Forces. He went straight to the campaign in north Africa and found himself in Tobruk, El Alamein and harrowing places like that. Fathers never talk much to their sons about their experiences of war, but I remember one occasion when I came home with a business vehicle—a four-wheel drive Japanese vehicle. My father was so upset that he asked me to remove it from his property. At the particular time, I also owned a Volkswagen campervan, and I said to him, `Dad, I also own a German made car.' His reaction to that was, `Well, the German soldier was an honourable soldier, son; the Japanese were not.' I have thought about the comments that the member for Northern Territory has made, long before he did, and there is a heightened distinction. Even the reading of history will make a distinction about what prisoners of war of the Japanese endured. It is regrettable and it is painful to talk about, but there is a special poignancy about what they endured. You have only to read about the notorious death march from Sandakan to Ranau, when more than 2,000 Australian and allied prisoners died in that dreadful march. You have only to read about the experiences in Burma on that notorious railway and visit the monuments there and read of the experiences of the survivors. That is what I have learnt from reading Neil Collinson's book Kicking against the Wind. He is a wonderful Australian, Neil Collinson. He served and was incarcerated with my Uncle Hughie. In a telephone conversation with Neil this morning—he is now accommodated at the Sunraysia Hostel for the Elderly, in Red Cliffs, my home town—he kept referring to me as Hughie. It was kind of special and I did not want to remind him that I was not Hughie but was in fact Hughie's nephew. A very special Australian is Neil Collinson. His reaction was instantly, `Well, you really did not need to do that. I have used my harrowing experience to make me a better person and to try to make the most of my life and that of my children.' But he wanted to say thank you.My purpose in ringing him was for something I think the parliament needs to do—and I am pleased that there is bipartisan support to get the bill through both houses so that we can get this payment forwarded on— and that is that the nation needs to say thank you. Something that I am very careful to do every Anzac Day is to make sure that I shake the hand of a veteran and to say—as one who, like the member for Moreton, has never been asked to endure what they have endured—thank you: thank you for being prepared to defend the fundamental principles of democracy which Australians have come to know and cherish; thank you for your endurance; thank you for your long suffering.To Neil Collinson and Lex Milne and the 21 Japanese prisoners of war across the division of Mallee, I say thank you. I am sorry that it has taken 50-odd years to deliver this. The member for the Northern Territory is right: governments of whatever colour and persuasion have taken too long. But I know it will be gratefully received by those prisoners of war who are still with us and by the surviving widows. I am very pleased to be here to support the bill this day.12:32:0026857Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00— Firstly, in referring to the matters contained in the Compensation (Japanese Internment) Bill 2001 and related bills, I endorse the sentiments that have been expressed about the need for the compensation for our POWs. My only regret is that it is too little, far too late. I personally believe that it does not go far enough in dealing with the issues of POWs in wartime generally—but that is another debate for another time.Since 1 July 2000, older Australians in particular have been hit hardest by the GST. This is a tax that has seen them pay more for bus fares, telephone bills, clothing, electricity, et cetera: the list goes on and on and on. The government promised older Australians relief for the GST. It promised them a lump sum payment of $1,000. It also promised a four per cent pension relief. Last night, the Treasurer short-changed older Australians. He did not short-change them by 10 or 20 or 30 per cent; he short-changed them by a massive 70 per cent, to the tune of $700. Labor will support this $300 payment, but it is a payment that falls far short of providing adequate relief for the GST: a GST that has mugged the economy, mugged small business and, sadly, mugged the elderly—a GST that is for life and a GST that will be inadequately compensated for by this meagre payment.Let us look at what the government is providing for pensioners. Finally the government is giving something back to seniors; but, as I said before, it is too little, too late. It is a one-off payment, and the GST is for life: our pensioners will have to put up with paying this obscene tax for the rest of their lives—every year, every time they go to the shop, every time they purchase something, they are hit with the GST. And what are they getting? A meagre $300, when they were originally promised $1,000. Also, where is the pension clawback? I do not see in the budget an extra two per cent for our pensioners, which they were promised. No; once again the government is ripping them off. This is symptomatic of the government's treatment of the elderly generally. For example, it promised pensioners that they would get 25 per cent of average weekly earnings but, on 12 occasions since that promise, the government has failed to deliver that 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. In the electorate of Swan, a large proportion of residents are over 55. Thanks to this government's mean-spirited policies, these older Australians are still getting mugged by its GST and its broken promises. I have spoken to many of these older Australians in recent weeks, and the common sentiments they have expressed to me are that they hoped this budget would bring them some relief.The stories I hear about older Australians doing it tough upset and anger me. Last night's budget does nothing to change that opinion. Already today I have spoken with a number of seniors from my electorate who cannot believe that this budget provides no light at the end of the tunnel for them. At a time in their life when they should not be worrying about their future, about where their next dollar will come from, about whether they will be able to buy enough food each week or pay their heating bills, last night's budget means they will continue to worry. These older Australians were asking where the extra $700 was that they were promised. Perhaps the Treasurer could explain.Perhaps the Treasurer could explain what happened to the adequate compensation for the GST. In fact, after listening to the Treasurer last night, I cannot actually recall the dreaded term `GST' being mentioned in his budget address. Sadly, older Australians are finding it hard to believe that the $300 is all the relief they will get, and they cannot believe that they could be so blatantly lied to by the government. The government promised that it would compensate them for the GST. It has not. Older Australians know this because the Treasurer's budget address failed to acknowledge at all that they needed compensation—in fact, as I said, it did not even mention the GST. All the Treasurer said was that older Australians `deserved' this payment.Let us look at the benefits promised in the budget to self-funded retirees. Sadly, the government has grossly exaggerated the benefits to self-funded retirees. Whilst I welcome the measures, I question the government's honesty in relation to what it has been saying. For example, the tax-free threshold rises to $20,000 but it was actually increased last month to $15,000 and, therefore, what the government has done is give a real increase of only $5,000. It is another tricky little Treasurer's taunt that he can throw up to our seniors. It is really only an extra $5,000.It is a welcome measure, but obviously it will not be accessed by all self-funded retirees. Based on our figures, only one in 10 will actually be eligible to receive it at all. It is another broken promise. It is a little like the old savings bonus when 40 per cent of the people did not receive it at all. When it was announced everyone thought, `Wow, this is fantastic. We are all going to get this great bonus,' but of course 40 per cent missed out. Also, no-one aged 55 to 65 will actually receive it at all. So, if you are a self-funded retiree in that category, you miss out completely. And no-one with an income over $35,000 will receive it either.Labor supports the measures, but we do not believe that the government has been honest. I believe the government should release the figures detailing the eligibility and how many people will actually receive the benefits. I think we might sadly come to the realisation that, yet again, the Australian people have been misled. What older Australians really deserve is a government that is honest. They deserve a government that honours its commitments. They deserve a government that does not give with one hand and take with the other. Earlier today the member for Lilley quite rightly said that this issue goes to the heart of what sort of society we want to live in. The government is wearing its heart on its sleeve with this measure. It is saying to older Australians that it does not care if it adequately compensates them. It is saying that it does not care if it lies and deceives older Australians. It is saying that it does not care if its policies mean older Australians will struggle to afford to feed, clothe or house themselves.A Labor government will commit itself to ensuring that in this society older Australians receive the support and treatment that they deserve. That means we will honour our commitments to them. We will ensure that the benefits they receive allow them to maintain their quality of life. Older Australians will not forget the promises the government made to them before the 1998 election and have since broken. They will not forget the hardships of the GST that have been brought about since July last year. They will not forget the government's measly attempts to compensate them that were announced in last night's budget. They will not forget that when they go to the ballot box later this year and elect a Labor government.The sad reality here is that the government does not care about senior citizens; it only cares about votes. I would like to quote from today's West Australian. I will describe a wonderful cartoon which really sums up the situation, and I will follow on with a quote from the editorial. It is a cartoon of Little Red Riding Hood visiting granny. Granny is in bed and two wolves have stormed through the door—in this instance, one is the Treasurer and one is the Prime Minister—and their pockets are bulging and their fangs are showing. Little Red Riding Hood turns to them and says, `Oooh ... What big pockets you have!' `All the better to lure granny to the ballot-box with!' says the Treasurer. The title of the comment section of the editorial is `A Budget of politics, prudence'. It says:Mr Costello also plans to give more than two million pensioners or part-pensioners a $300 non-taxable lump sum. His attempted justifications are that the economy can benefit from it, the Budget can afford it and older Australians deserve it. The first point is true, the second questionable and the third glib.In fact, it is a brazen election handout. And many people will see in it an unspoken acknowledgment by the Government that some older Australians were inadequately compensated for tax reform—or generally believe they were.It goes on to say:... Mr Costello has left the Government open to the accusation that this Budget is aimed at saving its bacon.I used to have a small piggery in years gone by, and I have never smelt such a stench of pork since I left the piggery business! Certainly that is what has been going on here—it is definitely an election budget.As I said before, the government here is giving back some of the benefits that it has ripped off from our older Australians in past years. Those seniors who have been least able to afford the government's impositions have been forced to pay. But seniors know that, if this government shakes your hand, you had better count your fingers. They know that, if this government promises something, then you had better check out the fine print because the chances are you will not get it. This government cannot be trusted. It speaks with a forked tongue and the Australian community will not forgive or forget. I welcome these initiatives. I only wish they had been introduced before so many of our elderly were forced to suffer at the hands of this government.12:42:0026859Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I have found having to listen to the previous Labor speakers a particularly tedious pastime this morning. The rantings of the opposition members were so predictable, so monotonous and so lacking in substance—the scripted mantra. I join with so many others in the community who lament the fact that this opposition is seemingly incapable of accepting graciously or sensibly any positive government measure to assist deserving members of our community. This is an opposition which can only wish that it was capable of managing the economy in the manner of this government that has allowed us to not only right the wrongs of past Labor administrations but provide initiatives for growth—positive steps and new benefits for the future. Labor could not afford to do any of this; we can. It seems that the mysteries of responsible fiscal management clearly still elude the opposition and that is why we hear this level of resentment from the opposition. It just does not get it.I am particularly pleased to speak on these budget measures the morning after the budget was handed down, for it gives me the opportunity to place on record my congratulations to the Treasurer for this—his sixth— budget. This is the fifth consecutive year that we have had a budget in surplus. That is a very fine record not seen for many years—certainly not in the last 30 years. We have a healthy surplus of $1.5 billion—and that is three times greater than market expectations. Just imagine if this were a Labor government in an election year. We would not see a skerrick of a surplus—just irresponsible debt.The Treasurer's first five budgets were focused on tax reform and on restoring the nation's economic position by paying off Labor's debt and by strong fiscal policies. The nation has been rewarded over the past five years with budgets in surplus. I think that is one of the most undervalued aspects of the economic management of the coalition over the past six years—turning the $11 billion deficit we inherited from Labor's pork-barrelling days into a surplus after our first year in government. We have maintained a surplus budget thereafter and we have repaid debt.It is worth noting again that, when the coalition came to government, Labor had racked up an $80 billion government debt. Over the past six years we have steadily repaid $60 billion of that debt. The immediate consequence of that feat is that, while Labor used to have to find $8 billion each year— and we know where they found that—just to service its debts alone, our country now needs $4 billion less each year to service the remainder of Labor's debt. That is $4 billion this country can invest in its future rather than paying off the profligate debts of those Treasury marauders, the previous Labor governments. So I congratulate the Treasurer on yet another economically and fiscally responsible budget. And this year the Treasurer has been able to focus quite specifically on the future—on social issues, on health, on the environment.As to the specifics of the bills before the House, I am particularly pleased to be able to support these measures on behalf of a great number of constituents in my electorate of Curtin, for the measures in these four bills address the circumstances of those who have served this country in times of war and those older Australians who have made and continue to make a contribution to our society. A nation can be judged on how it treats its older citizens as much as on how it treats its younger people. I am proud of the fact that this budget has recognised the immense contribution of our fathers and mothers, grandparents and, in some instances, great-grandparents—all those who have paved the way for future generations.The bill comprising the one-off payment to older Australians—a payment of $300 to all social security pensioners and beneficiaries by 30 June this year—is a recognition of our gratitude and appreciation to those members of our community who have given much over the years and who deserve our acknowledgment in this way. I know from the discussions I have held with pensioners in my electorate that $300 will be a welcome addition to their pension payment—a payment that we fixed when we came to office. We fixed the maximum basic rate of the single adult social security pension, after indexation, so it would not fall below a rate equal to 25 per cent of the male total average weekly earnings figure. Last year we increased the pension by four per cent—it is two per cent higher in real terms—and now we introduce the $300 bonus. Only a very mean-spirited opposition would carp about this.The Family and Community Services and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Further Assistance for Older Australians) Bill 2001 builds on the initiatives and support that we have provided in our previous budgets and recognises the efforts of our self-funded retirees, those who have made provision for their retirement. These measures are directed to those on low or modest incomes who do not qualify for the age pension. I think the highlight of these measures is the significant extension of the availability of the Commonwealth seniors health card. We had previously increased the income limits under which people could access the benefits; now we increase the income limits to $50,000 for single people and $80,000 for couples from 1 September. That is a wonderful measure. It will affect a great many people in my electorate, and I encourage all those who are eligible for this card to take it up. The benefits are there, and there are even more incentives for those who do take up the seniors health card, with the extension of the telephone allowance to the holders of this card. That equates to about $17.20 per quarter. There are other positive aspects to the bill. Superannuation assets are to be exempted from social security means tests for people aged between 55 and the age pension age. This is a recognition that people should preserve their super for a better quality retirement. The Taxation Laws Amendment (Changes for Senior Australians) Bill 2001 also builds on the benefits that have been delivered to pensioners and self-funded retirees in our past budgets and in our tax reform measures: the real increases in pensions and allowances, the low income tax rates, the lower capital gains tax rates and the refunds of excess imputation credits. So, in addition to those benefits, this budget provides for a substantial increase in the tax rebates available to older Australians, including self-funded retirees, those of pension age and those receiving a pension. In effect, a single senior Australian can derive taxable income up to $20,000 without paying income tax. Under Labor, they only had to earn $5,400 and they would be hit with an income tax liability. That is mean. We have lifted this tax-free threshold over time, and it is now up to $20,000. I applaud this initiative, as will the many self-funded retirees and pensioners in the Curtin electorate. Also under this initiative, couples will be able to derive income of $32,612 without paying tax. This is the next step along the path we have already taken to increase these rebates over time.Finally, I turn to the Compensation (Japanese Internment) Bill 2001 under which compensation will be paid to all living Australian prisoners of war and civilian detainees and internees who were held by Japan during World War II. My generation and those younger have grown up in relative security, assuming that Australia will provide us with peace and prosperity, and safe in the knowledge that we live in a country with a strong democratic tradition that values the rule of law, individual freedoms and basic human rights. But we owe much of our sense of security and contentment to our service men and women and others who made the sacrifice to defend the freedom of this country. Following the fall of Singapore in 1942 and during the war in the Pacific, 22,000 Australian men and women were taken prisoner. Many suffered unspeakable hardship. Many died in the most brutal circumstances.One of the most moving experiences I can recall in the past few years was when I spoke at an Ex-POW Association meeting in Perth. Over a cup of tea, a number of the ex-POWs began talking about their experiences—not in detail; they spared me that. Quietly, in a matter of fact way, they spoke of some of what they had endured, what they had seen, how it had affected their lives and how they feel now. There are some 27 ex-POWs of the Japanese living in my electorate of Curtin and some 80 to 90 widows of ex-POWs. This budget initiative of a one-off cash payment of $25,000 is for them and for the other surviving POWs and civilian detainees and surviving widows and widowers across Australia. It cannot rewrite history, it cannot erase the years from the memories of those who suffered, but it is a recognition by this government of what they endured in the name of the defence of Australia.These bills represent tangible, positive benefits for older Australians. As the Treasurer observed in his budget speech last evening, the government are taking these measures because the economy can benefit from them, the budget can afford them this financial year and our older Australians deserve them. We are making these payments because our management of the economy enables us to do so—we can do it, and so we have done it. These Australians deserve these payments. No-one should argue with that. I commend these bills to the House. 12:52:0026862Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise to comment in particular on the Compensation (Japanese Internment) Bill 2001 that was a part of the government budget announced last night. I very much welcome the fact that former prisoners of war of the Japanese are going to get a one-off payment of $25,000 in compensation. I welcome it because of the fact that it is deserved. I welcome it because of my own personal experience in having a great friendship and comradeship with Tom Uren, a former Japanese prisoner of war, and colleagues of his whom I had the opportunity—indeed, the privilege—of going to Hellfire Pass in Thailand with in 1987 when I worked for Tom. On that occasion I also had the privilege to meet great Australians such as Sir Edward `Weary' Dunlop, Sir John Carrick and other prisoners of war who came for the opening of the Australian memorial that has been built there. I was there for Anzac Day 1987, and it was an extraordinarily emotional experience.Having had the privilege of talking to these veterans about their experiences is something that I will treasure for the rest of my life. It made me determined, if given the opportunity, to raise these issues and push for compensation. That is why since I have been elected to this parliament I have pursued those issues. I asked a question on notice of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on 9 August 1999 about how many Australian ex-servicemen who were Japanese prisoners of war were alive on 30 June of that year and I got a figure of 3,078. A year later on 5 October 2000 I again asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs what the situation was 12 months later, on 30 June 2000. The figure was 2,819, reflecting a loss of some eight per cent in just one year. At that time I also called for compensation to be given following the decision of the British Labour government under Tony Blair.It is not surprising that these veterans have suffered so much, given the inhumane and brutal treatment that they were subjected to—over many years in some cases. In Tom Uren's case, he was captured in Timor and suffered four years of internment in prisoner of war camps in Changi in Singapore, on the Burma-Siam railway and, of course, in Japan as a prisoner of war when he saw the devastation of the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki.It is about time that the Australian government followed the lead of the British government and, previously, the Canadian government in giving compensation. Of the 22,000 Australian soldiers who were captured by the Japanese military, only 14,000 returned home. The number captured represents only four per cent of those Australians who saw active service, but those who died represent a massive 30 per cent of all Australian soldiers who died during the war. Due to the long-term health effects arising from this brutal treatment by the Japanese military, they continued to die at four times the rate of other returned soldiers between 1945 and 1959. Since then the rate of death has been 20 per cent higher than for other returned soldiers. The Blair government announced last year that they would pay £10,000 in compensation. On 8 November 2000, I put out a press statement titled `Former POWsdeserve compensation', in which I said:The Australian Government should consider making a similar payment as a gesture that later generations recognise the extraordinary sacrifice made by these courageous Australians.I said then:Figures, however, do nothing to convey the human tragedy that was played out in the Japanese prisoner of war camps. These veterans have suffered so much and continue to live with the effects of the brutal treatment they received.I was pleased that the announcement was made last night, but not pleased that the government for a long time said that this payment was not necessary. Hence, last night, when the Treasurer made the announcement, I interjected, `Scott thinks this is a stupid idea.' I did that because, when I raised the issue of compensation in statements last year, in speeches in the parliament, in media releases and in questions on notice to the minister, the minister responded in a way which I think was not appropriate. I am pleased that there has been a change of heart, but this was not the case at that time. I quote from an article from Jamie Walker in the Australian of Monday, 3 July 2000: In Australia yesterday, a spokesman for Veterans Affairs Minister Bruce Scott said the Government preferred to provide care rather than cash and did not treat former prisoners of war in Japan or Europe any differently.“Australia has one of the most generous repatriation systems in the world and our focus is providing comprehensive care rather than ex-gratia payments,” he said.That was Minister Scott's spokesman on the record last year. Again, on 7 November, quoting from an AAP article `Fed: No plans for lump sums for prisoners': Australia had no plans to follow the example of Britain and pay former prisoners of war of Japan a lump sum compensation, the government said today. A spokesman for Veterans Affairs Minister Bruce Scott said there was no need as Australia had always adopted a generous compensation scheme for war veterans. I am very angry that, given that I have campaigned on this issue, the minister has alleged that I said it was a stupid idea when in fact I clearly said that the minister thought it was a stupid idea and that the government had failed to respond and, indeed, had in their own words said that such a payment was not necessary. But you expect that from this government. This is a government that is too tricky by half and gets caught out all the time. It is a government that follows but never leads. It is a government that, whether it is this payment of $25,000, which the Labor Party welcomes, whether it is the $300 payment to pensioners, which the Labor Party welcomes, whether it is the changes in the tax-free threshold for self-funded retirees, which the Labor Party welcomes, has tried to discover some compassion only last night. It is too late, because the electorate knows that this is a government which is not fair dinkum, which is mean spirited, which is tricky, and which the government's own members of parliament know is mean spirited and tricky. I would conclude my comments by saying that I welcome the announcement. However long it took the government to come to the table, at least now we have a bipartisan position on this. I seek to table my media release of 8 November 2000 titled `Former POWs deserve compensation' in which I called upon the government to do it on Remembrance Day, 11 November—and I would have thought that would have been an appropriate time—and also the media release of 24 April 2001, `Albanese urges grants to former POWs', the statement `Fed: No plans for lump sums for prisoners' from AAP and an article from the Australian of Monday, 3 July, `Cash for British PoWs, not ours'. I seek leave to table those. Leave granted. 13:03:0026863Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10— First, may I add my congratulations to the Treasurer for a splendid budget and for addressing some of the concerns expressed by people in my electorate. I know these measures will be welcomed by the many pensioners and self-funded retirees whom I have talked to over the last long period of time. Indeed, in these bills their concerns have been reflected. I have heard a few of the members on the other side talk about broken promises, but I can remember going back to when I first came into this place not so long ago, in 1993—it was when John Hewson was leader of the Liberal Party and leader of the coalition—when we proposed to put into place a fairer tax system.We know now that the former Labor Prime Minister did all he could to prevent that from happening and promised the electorate tax cuts. In fact, he said in this House—and I heard him—`These are l-a-w tax cuts and they will happen.' Of course, immediately after the election we saw sales tax increases on all goods. That had a dramatic effect on our pensioners and on our self-funded retirees. Labor made no attempt whatsoever to provide any offsetting increases in the pension or, indeed, give pensioners or self-funded retirees any bonuses to offset the effect of very dramatic increases in sales tax. So not only were there not tax cuts; there were additional taxes applied to a very wide range of goods and there were no offsetting benefits for pensioners and self-funded retirees. People on the other side need to remember that, because this is the first time that pensioners and self-funded retirees have been given offsetting amounts and, indeed, bonuses. They do deserve them. There is no doubt about that. These are the people who have been our nation builders, and who have allowed us in this generation to live very comfortably. I think that these measures are well overdue, and I welcome them.I want to talk briefly about some of the measures. One is the one-off payment to the aged. This initiative will provide a new one-off payment of $300 to two groups of older Australians, but this bill in particular relates to people on income support over age pension age, that is, 61½ years for women and 65 for men, and veterans on income support who are over the veteran pension age, that is, 56½ for women and 60 for men. This group will receive the payment automatically by 30 June 2001 if this bill passes through this House and, of course, the Senate. It is a very important measure that gives pensioners this benefit right now; they do not have to wait. I think that is a very positive thing.People over the pension age who are outside the income support and the personal income tax system and who do not have a partner in either system may also benefit. That certainly will help farm families in my electorate who are asset rich but cash poor. So there will be an opportunity for people in that category also to share in this benefit. Those payments are expected to be made any time through Centrelink between 1 July and 31 December 2001. So people in that category can apply to Centrelink during that period for their $300 one-off payment. This measure will give a great boost to the living standards of older Australians on income support or where both they and their partners are outside both the income support and personal income tax system. Such a measure has been widely advocated by groups representing older people. As I said, certainly I have had many representations from pensioners and self-funded retirees in my constituency. The tax-free payment may assist people to meet winter bills and certainly will provide an alternative to other options, particularly the $500 lump sum that is available to them now to meet lumpy expenditure, such as house maintenance and repairs. It is a very welcome and important measure.There are also other measures that will support this. One, of course, is the telephone allowance. That will provide $17.20 a quarter to eligible self-funded retirees who qualify for a Commonwealth seniors health card. Again, this is going to be very important for many self-funded retirees in my electorate, particularly those living in the outer metropolitan region, for whom the telephone is literally their connection to their family and others. There is not the same opportunity for social interaction, so the telephone is used quite extensively. That is also going to be much welcomed by self-funded retirees and seniors in my electorate. Of course, we will see the extension of the seniors health card. Again, that will be a very welcome measure.There is another issue that self-funded retirees have raised with me which is part of the measures being announced. When I first came into parliament, the big issue was that self-funded retirees paid a higher rate of tax on their earnings than a pensioner who also had small private earnings. The tax-free threshold for self-funded retirees was different from that of pensioners, which was very unfair. Their pleas to the Labor government to change this fell on deaf ears. That is something that the Howard government took up in its very first term of office and changed. Under the previous Labor government measures, the tax-free threshold was $5,400. This government increased it to $11,000. Under the measures that the Treasurer announced last night, that will increase further to $20,000. This is an enormously important measure for both part pensioners who earn income and pay tax and also fully self-funded retirees. I am sure that that is going to be a very welcome measure. In relation to compensation for people who were prisoners of war in Japanese war camps, there are some very prominent people in my electorate who were Japanese prisoners of war. These are people like Jack Sue, who really is a national hero, and people like Keith Flannagan, who spent so much of his retirement promoting the work of Weary Dunlop and educating schoolchildren, in his own time and at his own expense, on that part of our history. This measure is going to be a very welcome one for people in my electorate who were prisoners of war of the Japanese. Of course, this measure also applies to the widows of prisoners of war of the Japanese, and they will also welcome this initiative.I welcome the measures that have been outlined in this budget. They build on other things that we have done. It does not tell the whole picture to just talk about the one-off payment of $300 or the initial four per cent increase in the pension to compensate for the introduction of the GST and the ongoing two per cent above indexation which pensioners now get in the pension. There are so many other measures that this government has brought in to support seniors in our community.I remember early in my career in this place talking to Avril Fink of the Carers Association. She said, `Judi, carers have never been recognised by the federal government.' We went to the Prime Minister and got funding for carers. It was a great joy for me to go to Northam, one of the regional centres in the country part of my electorate, the other day and open the Carelink centre, because this was part of the initiative announced when I was minister to establish resource centres and respite centres all over the country to assist carers and those who need access to care. A good many of the people who fall into that category are the seniors in our community. So in the health area we have done so much to assist the seniors in our community.Commonwealth funding for health care will increase by $2.9 billion over the next five years. Measures such as additional funding for the prevention of diabetes, for example, also affect the seniors in our community, because many people who get diabetes type 2 are older people in our community. So these are very welcome measures. As for the gold card, an increase in the people who qualify for that is very important. Free annual flu injections have been introduced by this government for people over the age of 65. There will be free annual voluntary health checks for all people over the age of 75. A sum of $209 million will be spent on improved hearing services. These all build substantially on the very direct benefit of the $300 bonus and the increase in earnings that can be had by self-funded retirees and part pensioners before they have to pay tax.So we need to be talking about the whole package that this government is putting forward, which really recognises the special circumstances of people who live on fixed incomes and the seniors—the people who have been the nation builders. One of the things that is very evident in my electorate is that not only have these people worked a lifetime and contributed to the development of this country during their working life but in retirement many of them are our voluntary workers: they are there delivering the Meals on Wheels to their peers who are not as well off in terms of their health; they are there transporting seniors to medical appointments and social engagements; they are there working to improve the environment—literally putting the spade into the ground—and they are there in so many capacities in our communities working in voluntary organisations to make their communities just that little bit better off. So they do deserve these measures. I congratulate the government, the Treasurer and Prime Minister on an excellent budget which has recognised our seniors as nation builders.13:16:0026865Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I am very pleased to be speaking on the Compensation (Japanese Internment) Bill 2001 and cognate bills. I know that there is unanimous support for this measure in the parliament, and there would be great support out in the community. We have heard already many speakers talking about the great hardship and the rate of death of prisoners of war under the Japanese regime. It certainly was a very sad period in our history. Those prisoners of war who are still alive today—those Australians who did make the sacrifice, who did serve and who experienced those harsh conditions—do deserve this $25,000 that the government is giving to them as a form of compensation. I would also like to put on the record my surprise at a number of the comments that have been made and one in particular from the member for Forrest who, while he gave a stirring speech with I am sure all good intentions and is very supportive of this money, sounded to me as though he was saying that other prisoners of war may not be as deserving of compensation. I want to put on the record that I think there are other prisoners of war—those who served in Greece and Crete, just to name two theatres of war on this their 60th anniversary—who would be just as deserving of some compensation. Each individual has a harrowing story to tell, and probably it is true that one could find none more harrowing than from those under the Japanese regime. Yet other prisoners of war were in theatres and experienced regimes that were just as bad.While these are very emotive issues—and I know people listen very carefully to what is said on these matters—it needs to be understood how the government got around to putting this $25,000 into the budget. It did not do that willingly; it went there dragged kicking and screaming all the way. Members may have witnessed an unfortunate incident in the House yesterday when the member for Grayndler actually made a comment that was further commented on by Minister Scott. The reality is that Minister Scott thought that this compensation was not necessary. The member for Grayndler at that point said that the minister thought that it was a stupid idea, but I know that he corrected this in the House earlier. It is a welcome part of the budget. It certainly will be well received in the community and, in particular, in the veteran community. I am sure that other POWs will look closely at the measure and how the government came to that position.On the matter of the budget itself and the issues contained within the bills before us today, I want to make it very clear that people should not be fooled. Do not be fooled by this budget. Do not be fooled by what this government attempts to do in all that it gives out with one hand and takes with the other. This measure of $300 compensation for pensioners and self-funded retirees is not something that this government willingly wanted to do. It is something that the government has done, dragged kicking and screaming all the way with gritted teeth and a smirky grin. What this does, though, is reinforce one very important fact about the GST and about this government's approach to that particular group in our community, and that is that the GST is hurting them and hurting them very badly—otherwise we would not need to have a compensatory measure. This is a very substantial measure in terms of the overall cost—$300 in itself may not seem a lot of money but I know that to pensioners and self-funded retirees it is a substantial sum of money. Overall, this represents a huge chunk of the budget. Why has the government done this? Why has it introduced this measure? Why $300 to start with? It is quite simply this: pensioners and self-funded retirees are not going to vote for the government, and the government has finally got the message. So what does the government do? It flicks out a $300 cheque. In doing that it has to come to the conclusion—everybody in the community has already come to the conclusion—that this pay-off money is to buy votes, but it buys votes in a very cynical way. We are still talking about a one-off payment of $300, which will disappear very quickly with the increased cost of living under the GST, but GST is for life. People should never forget that. Three hundred dollars is a very small measure when balanced against GST for life. The government might say, `What about the $1,000?' That is a good question. Where is it? Thirty per cent of people who were promised the $1,000 compensation measure did not receive anything— they got zero. They got nothing. The problem with the $300 is again in the fine print. People should look at the eligibility criteria. They should have a look at who is really going to get it. Let us have a close look at those who will be the winners and those who will be the losers. There certainly are some winners in this. Those who are wealthy enough in the first place—and good on them for receiving the full $1,000 each—will also get the $300. So, thank you very much, there will be $1,300 for those who already have substantial savings and already have some money. Those who did not receive $1,000, those who got nothing, get $300. They are still $700 short. Where is the $700? When is the government going to come up with what it promised? I am not asking the government to do more than it promised. Everyone heard the radio interviews. Everyone knows what was promised. Certainly the pensioners and self-funded retirees know what was promised to them. They were promised $1,000. Some of them are still $700 short. So they will be saying, `Thanks very much; I will pocket the money, but I will not forget.' I know that those people out in the community will not forget either. This budget measure is not about helping pensioners and self-funded retirees; it is about winning votes.There are a number of other issues in terms of clawback, for example. This $300 does very little to compensate those people who are more than affected by the two per cent. Where is the two per cent? Why is that not in the budget? This government has quite cleverly taken money off people through the GST and through other measures. Members should not forget that measures relating to free dental and free hearing aids have gone. They should not forget all of that other money that was ripped out—the $750 million. This does not even come close to compensating those people for those things. One thing remains; that is, the damage that is being done by the GST not only to those people but also to all families across Australia. Regardless of the statistics, the clever accounting and the figures we read, we should go and talk to people at the checkouts. We should talk to those families who go shopping and who have seen their bills jump not 10 per cent, and not even 20 per cent; people are telling me that their bills have gone up by 25 per cent and 30 per cent. They used to do weekly shopping for $150 a week—very conservative shopping. I am talking about people who are doing it tough on low incomes—pensioners. Now they are saying that their bills are more than $200 a week. And it is the same shopping. It is not as if they are becoming extravagant and buying bottles of champagne at Woolies. They are just buying what they used to buy. In fact, they are trying to be a little more miserly and they are paying a lot more. There is nothing much in this that actually delivers much more to these people. Three hundred dollars will be gone quickly, but the GST will remain with them forever.Not only has this government given back very little to buy votes; it has also done a number of backflips—backflips on BAS, backflips on beer. The Labor Party will not have to introduce a roll-back program because the government will have achieved it before we get into government. This budget is very clever. It is not clever for what it purports to put back into the community or for what it is going to give to people; it is very clever in the way it gives with one hand and takes with the other. It gives $300 on one side but reaps a whole heap more—huge windfalls of money through the GST. Although it talks cleverly about interest rates being lower now so families are better off by $300 a month, I ask: better off than what? Better off than if they did not have the GST? Better off than what? These are the questions, and they are not being answered by this government. It has been caught red-handed pickpocketing people in the street. When it has been caught, the government has said, `No, but we will give it back.' Of course, it does not give it all back; it just gives some of it back and then expects a pat on the back and the community to say, `Good job, well done.' People are not that silly. People know what this is about. This is not a miracle budget. There is a lot of spending. This is a big-spending government, there is no doubt, but it is also the biggest spending government since Federation. So while on the one hand we have this government hailing the biggest tax reform in 100 years, the GST does not get a mention in the budget speech. That goes silent. In fact, when the Treasurer began his budget speech, I checked some of my documents from the last budget speech, because I actually thought that he was reading the last one. It was not until he was about five minutes into it that I had realised that this was the new speech, not the old speech. So there was not really that much difference in it. Sure, they have lifted the tax-free threshold. Again, this is a good move and will be well appreciated by those who receive it. But, again, the eligibility is what people need to look at, and they need to look at it very closely. At the end of the day, this government is mean, tricky and out of touch. I love that, because we did not coin that phrase. We did not say it, we did not write it; the Liberal Party did. It was their own party that said that about their own Treasurer, about their own leadership—that it is mean, tricky and out of touch. They said it because it is true. It is as simple as that. This budget is a tricky budget. It is a mean budget. It puts back a little bit where it took away a lot and says, `Aren't we good.' What this budget attempts to do is to say to people, `Look, we are going to be coming up to an election.' We are running out of time for an election, because we have to remember that we have probably now been running the longest re-election campaign in history. Some time since last year this government has been mooting that possibly we will be going to an election. I can tell members that out in the community people are saying, `Give us some certainty,' and I know that business is saying that to me—`Tell us what your real intentions are. Don't masquerade and hide behind the budget. Don't masquerade and hide behind little handouts as compared to what you are reaping in through the GST.'In the minute that I have got left, I just want to make a couple of comments about how this government manages to squeeze the community in terms of Centrelink and the Job Network. Where it really should be paying some attention and delivering some real services, some dollars, some resources and some training, it is doing the very opposite. What it is doing is putting in place very complicated sets of systems and networks that nobody understands. If members talk to any Centrelink officer or any Job Network officer anywhere and ask the same question of three different people, they would get three different answers. Why? Because if you can wade through the mountain of documentation that changes so regularly that no-one knows which one is the latest, then you might be able to get through it and get one answer. But if you are the poor punter who comes in off the street and has to fill out all the forms that are so complicated and then find that you are actually being accused of all sorts of things like fraud and other things, then you are the one who suffers. It is those people out there who suffer. This government will be remembered in this budget for being mean, tricky and completely out of touch. 13:29:0026868St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—What a great day it is to be able to stand here in the House and reflect on the delivery of the budget last night and have the opportunity to make sure that this House is aware and the people of Australia are aware of some of the marvellous initiatives that have been put in place. I want to cover a number of these issues today, but I would like to start off in particular with the recognition by this government of the POWs and the widows and widowers of POWs. It was not until I was starting to put a few lines together for some history of what has happened over the last 60 years that I started to see the enormous contribution that people made in their service to this country. I do not think there are many people in this place whose families have not been touched in one way or another by those who served overseas. Certainly, there would not be many members in this place whose families were not touched by those who served in South-East Asia in that theatre of war under the Japanese. I notice that following the fall of Singapore nearly 60 years ago, in 1942, more than 22,000 Australian men and women were taken prisoner by the Japanese. By war's end more than 8,000 Australian POWs, or 36 per cent of those taken prisoner by the Japanese, had died. These are appalling statistics. For up to 3½ years, Australian service personnel, and civilians of course, suffered in the most horrific conditions imaginable. As we have heard here in this place, they endured starvation and brutal treatment at the hands of their captors. They were forced into slave labour projects, as we are aware, such as the Burma-Thailand railway. Earlier today the member for Mallee spoke of three of his uncles, the fact that only one returned and of the difficulty that those people who returned had in being able to discuss anything of what happened up there. My wife's uncle, Claude Pidcock, spent a number of years in internment, working on the Thai-Burma railway, and then had a long stretch in hospital before being flown back to Australia. He was a member of the 8th Division, 2/15 Battalion. He also could not talk about it to any of his family, including his wife, Norma. A package which will pay a certain amount of compensation is a great tribute to the Howard-Anderson government. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the member for Maranoa, actually approached the POW association to ask it to put forward a program for compensation and to seek its views. The POW association responded and Minister Scott not only acted upon that information but indeed was able to go beyond the expectations of the POW association. I think that is great. In my electorate of New England we have some 22 or 23 ex-POWs who served over there. We also have some 60 widows of POWs who have passed on. I am sure that this compensation, while coming late in their life, will be welcomed and appreciated, particularly as an act on behalf of this government and of Australia in giving thanks for their ultimate sacrifice. We need to get the message out there that this compensation is available. As we know, a lot of people who return from active service do not seek compensation, and the message should be put out there, particularly to the widows and widowers, that this compensation is available and that they are entitled to it. I urge all of us to be out there in our communities making sure that those who are entitled to the compensation receive the appropriate payment. I am pleased to see that there is bipartisan support for this measure, and again I congratulate the Howard-Anderson government. I particularly congratulate Minister Scott, the member for Maranoa, my National Party colleague, for being instrumental in bringing this compensation measure to fruition. I think it is great news and certainly welcomed.I turn to the budget generally. I want to stay away from the negativity of the other side. I do not want to be involved in that negativity—that spoiling, that misinformation, that running down of economies, that continual having nothing constructive to provide. I do want to take up a couple of the points that were mentioned by the previous speaker. He was discussing the revenue from the GST. He failed again to recognise in this House that the total revenue from the GST goes to the states. In the case of New South Wales, that is a figure of some $8 billion-odd, which is enough to pay, as we have heard before in this place, the wages of every teacher and policeman and of those involved in other public service. In the case of New South Wales, we are looking forward to seeing some of the moneys that are coming through from the GST being spent back in that state. The member also mentioned free dental care. I must make a comment on this. Back in the time of the previous Labor government, in about 1992, there was a four-year sunset-claused program of dental assistance around Australia, particularly in New South Wales, to help cope with the demand for dental care. That was to assist New South Wales get its programs up to date. I can inform the members of this House that the New South Wales Labor Carr government has failed miserably in its provision of dental care to the public of New South Wales. Those on the other side of the House have often raised the fact that the dental program had money taken away from it by the Commonwealth. That is not correct. The fact is that it was a four-year fixed program. Typical of those on the other side, we find that there is this continual neglect of the taxpayers in New South Wales by the Carr Labor government in relation to the spending of money. When we look through the budget papers and certainly at the speech that the Treasurer gave last night—and people in my electorate have commented to me about this—we see that it was again another strong delivery of a budget that is building upon five strong budgets before that. During some of the discussion that has been put forward on wages and tax cuts in particular, I noticed that the average weekly wage earner's top marginal rate used to be around the 42c in the dollar mark. People will be aware that through the tax cuts which are, of course, still current— they are still going on—that rate is now down to 30c. Workers in my electorate in particular, in the factories and on the floors, to whom we talk regularly are concerned that, should Beazley and the rest of his people on the front bench over there form government at the next election, they will see their marginal tax rates go back up to 42 per cent. They are very concerned about this issue of roll-back and the fact that their income tax will rise to pay for it.We are restricted by time, but I am looking forward to having more of a chance to go into the details of the budget. It is a strong budget built on a strong economy. It is certainly good for the country areas, particularly in my electorate of New England. I commend the government for it.13:39:0026870Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—It is very interesting to watch the delivery of these speeches today. The relief on the faces of government members is almost palpable. You can see them almost salivating with relief that somehow they might be off the hook. It is also a bit like the grand old Duke of York marching his soldiers up the hill and marching them down again. The people who have been speaking this morning and who will no doubt speak later today are the very people who are out there defending the government and making very strong speeches in favour of the GST and in defence of the unpaid $1,000 savings bonus and the aged persons bonus. All the things that are now being reversed were defended by those opposite up hill and down dale. The poor old foot soldiers of the government are back into battle. This time they are a bit happier, but they are the very soldiers who were saying the same words when they were defending the matters that are now being reversed. If that was not the case, if the government was actually serious about correcting some of these issues, why is it introducing a whole new system, for example, in relation to the aged persons bonus? Why not make up the payment so that they all get the $1,000? If the government was doing that, it would probably cost no more than the current measure.What is happening now, of course, is that in most cases the people who got the $1,000 will also get the $300 extra. People were saying to the government, `Just give us $1,000.' So why is that? The answer is very simple: it would have taken a bit more time and a bit more working out to actually mesh the two together. This way was a quick, dirty system for all recipients without having to work out who may have been paid something previously. The lack of foresight, the lack of depth and the lack of detail in that particular measure are monumental. And this is from a government whose most famous label, I suppose, is the core promise. This is the Prime Minister who invented `core' and `non-core'. We now know that the $1,000 for aged persons was not a core promise, but there is now an attempt to resurrect it to a half-core. So we are getting an in-between now: there are core, non-core and somewhere between the two. The government is now retrieving or attempting to retrieve the situation. This reverse gear that the government has discovered in the last six months is quite fascinating. It has different speeds, and it does not always mesh properly, but it is being used an awful lot. All of that simply reinforces the public perception of a government that is tricky, too clever by half, mincing words and trying to find ways to say something or do something but at the same time not doing it wholeheartedly. The mean-spiritedness of this government is monumental, and it still comes through in last night's budget. These four rushed-in pieces of legislation that we are dealing with today—the Compensation (Japanese Internment) Bill 2001, Family and Community Services and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Further Assistance for Older Australians) Bill 2001, Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (One-off Payment to the Aged) Bill 2001 and Taxation Laws Amendment (Changes for Senior Australians) Bill 2001— are to go through the parliament this week. We sit and wait for years for legislation that is promised to us. We wait for months to get it up to speed and to get it voted on. But suddenly, within 24 hours, this legislation will be through this House. It was announced last night, and four pieces of legislation will be put through the House today. It is strange, isn't it? Isn't it peculiar how suddenly the drafting processes can all happen? Isn't it fascinating how suddenly the government finds high-speed performance for some of its legislation? And the strange part is that when we try to find out what it is about, we are told that that will come later; we will find out later what it all means. It will all go through, but the interpretation of it will come later.This government, if nothing else, is marked for its flawed legislation. So many amendments have been made to the GST legislation. What is the figure now: 2,000 amendments? How many pages? How big is the tax act now? How many tens of thousands of pages are there? There are flaws all the way through, and I want to mention to the parliament one particular flaw that I think people might find interesting.A constituent of mine, Helen Maddison, was quite offended when she and her husband applied for the aged persons savings bonus. Her husband was able to receive $1,000 because he had money in rollover. The government said, `That's his money and not yours. Therefore, you can't get it.' So she received $134. Mrs Maddison was offended by this because she felt that the money in the rollover was their joint money. She had helped him save for it. They spent it jointly. They treated it as being their asset and their money. So she appealed. She went to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, suggesting that this was unfair and wrong. Guess what? She won. The Social Security Appeals Tribunal upheld her appeal and said that the government should give her the same amount of money as it gave her husband.However, the minister and the government then said, `Sorry, you can't have that money,' and they have now appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which is effectively a court. This constituent is a lady who has no income but who is a pensioner. She is not a lawyer. She cannot afford barristers and lawyers to fight the government. The full weight of the government is now aimed against this lady in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I wrote to the minister about this in January and said that this goes against all precedent. The income of pensioners is treated as household income, except in this case where the husband's income is deemed to be separate. Superannuation and rollover are treated as the assets of a marriage, except in this case, and now the government wants to say that they are separate. Why reverse those policies in this particular case? Why use all the resources of government to deny a woman $866? The minister came back to me and said, `Because it's technically wrong. We think there's a misinterpretation.' Do members know why? Because the government is pushing through legislation so quickly, so roughly and so badly that it is constantly flawed. Make no mistake: when people understand these pieces of legislation, they will find flaws in them as well. There has barely been any piece of legislation put through the parliament in the last five years that has not been seriously flawed, and we are having to come back and correct it later. In this mad rush to get legislation through, people will pay for it one way or another, because the parliament will have to come back and correct it.While rumours abounded about what would be contained in the budget, people were making representations to their local members. One issue that comes to mind is compensation for prisoners of war. I received a letter from one constituent who was offended by this measure because he felt it was unfair that prisoners of war of the Japanese—and he was a prisoner of war in Asia of the Japanese—were being compensated by the Australian taxpayer and not by the Japanese, when Australian taxpayers had not made him a prisoner of war. I agree with the government's point of view in that he was acting for all Australians as a soldier and therefore we have some obligation. However, he was concerned that he would be seen to be taking a benefit from his fellow citizens when in fact the real perpetrators were not being asked to pay compensation. His concern was this: why didn't the government ask the Japanese, not the taxpayers, to compensate me? Another person who approached me and who was much angrier about the issue was a former prisoner of war of the Germans in Europe. His concerns were that so many of his colleagues suffered as badly and as heinously as did prisoners of the Japanese. He suggests that the idea that prisoners of war in Germany had honourable soldiers looking after them is absolutely and totally wrong. Why single out one group? Why differentiate? Why be so divisive? Why say to prisoners of war, `We'll pay you, but not you'? Why is the government embarking on this kind of divisiveness? This has never been done in this country. We have treated veterans as veterans. We have never said that some are different. Governments on both sides have tried to keep universality, but suddenly the prisoners of war of one enemy are now to receive a payment. Why do that? Why would the government do that? I have heard no explanation. I heard previous speakers saying that the Germans were honourable and the Japanese were not. As I said, many prisoners of war in Germany will tell you that the Germans they dealt with were not so honourable. That is not to defame Germans as a race, but the experiences were very different from prisoner of war to prisoner of war. That is why we have always been so careful to make recognition universal.The government is attempting to redeem itself in the eyes of the voters. I understand that, and well it needs to for all the massive cuts to services. Cuts to services that I still find the most hurtful were cuts to the dental system. People come into my office now who have waited for four years on a waiting list for dental treatment. The $100 million a year cut from that program was horrendous. All those savings that were made were spent last year as tax cuts. In the main, more than half went to people earning high incomes. All of those cuts were spent. The government is now desperate to buy its way back into office, but I think it underestimates the Australian people. I do not think people will fall for this all that readily. Even though government members are absolutely ecstatic in their excitement and enthusiasm because they suddenly might have a chance of staying in government after the next election, I would not be all that excited if I were them. I am more concerned about doing it properly. Let us get these things right. I support these measures, but they do not do what needs to be done to the fullest extent, but at least the government is now actually helping rather than hurting. The last five years of this government have been tough for many in our community, and if some groups are getting some of it back that is fine. I support the legislation but with those reservations. 13:51:0026872Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I am delighted to speak to this Compensation (Japanese Internment) Bill 2001 and very pleased at last night's announcement in the budget. This is a budget that lays a foundation for the future. It rewards those who have done the hard yards not only in building the nation but in supporting the government, through what has been a difficult time, to redress the budget deficit that we were left by the Labor Party. Can I talk firstly about laying a foundation for the future. In the budget document, I note that there will be 1,800 undergraduate student places in regional higher education institutions from 2002. That is an excellent initiative to offer opportunities for education to those outside the major centres. There is a range of other initiatives, which I will not dwell on because they have received understandably sound coverage in the press. Can I just say that, for all Australians, laying a foundation for the future essentially means responsible government and ensuring that there is a surplus in the budget that will assist interest rates to remain low. We have repaid $60 billion worth of Labor's $80 billion debt. Every year as a result of that, we save on our interest bill $4 billion a year. That is very welcome news. A saving of $4 billion a year is money that can go to those who have done the hard yards. We will be cutting taxes by $5 billion. Those people on average weekly earnings—and there are many Australians who raise a family, who work hard on average weekly earnings— would have been paying under the Labor Party 43 cents in the dollar. Thanks to our changes in the tax reform package, they are now paying 30 cents in the dollar. Australian truckies are paying 27c less per litre on fuel. But it is those who have done the hard yards, those who have built this nation, those who have raised a family, those who essentially should be enjoying a dignified and comfortable older age that the government has turned its attention to, and rightly so. For pensioners, there is a non-taxed lump sum of $300—2.2 million Australians will receive that payment. The income level for eligibility for a seniors health card, which enables people to obtain pharmaceutical benefits after 52 scripts for only $3.50 per script, will go to $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for couples, with assistance for telephone and associated matters. For independent retirees—those people who have worked hard, put aside a nest egg and live on their own resources— the tax-free threshold is being raised, and I am very pleased to hear that. It is a significant recognition that, while we care for those who have nowhere else to turn—and appropriately so—there are those who have worked hard to put aside provision for their own retirement. It is appropriate that that sacrifice be recognised. For them, the tax-free threshold will be increased for a single independent retiree from $20,000 to $32,612, and there is the Medicare levy exemption. What this means is that, for an independent retiree who is earning $20,000, they would have paid, had this measure not been brought in, $2,688 in tax. They will now pay none—no tax up to $20,000. For a couple on $20,000 each as an income, they would have paid tax of $6,140 as a couple. They will now pay a total of $2,179. I am very pleased with the initiatives for those in Australia who have done the hard yards. I would like to turn to some of the comments that have been made by those on the other side. I note that the member for Oxley said that they are ready for an election. Nobody on this side is talking about an election, and nor should we. There is more work to be done—a great deal more work to be done. But the member for Oxley is very keen to go to an election. He has, in fact, called it the longest running campaign.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—Her capacity to keep a straight face is astounding.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Your capacity to talk about l-a-w law cuts is astounding, too. We remember the Labor Party's promises. I just want to refer to an article by Jim Dickens in the Telegraph on 22 May. He noted that Labor has made more than 50 election statements. The government has made none, and that is appropriately so. Labor, he goes on to say, has failed to release any firm details about how much it plans to spend. But it gets more interesting. I refer to an article by Ian Henderson in the Australian. He states: But the focus must then quickly shift to Beazley and his Labor team, and whether they are willing and able to show how their policies will fit into the fiscal framework they have fashioned ... But comments over the weekend both by Beazley's deputy and Treasury spokesman, Simon Crean, and by his shadow finance minister, Lindsay Tanner, make it clear that the opposition has a responsibility to accelerate that process. Crean has previously pledged a Beazley Labor government to the seemingly impossible. This is where Australians need to be very cautious, and I quote from the article in the Australian: ... simultaneously delivering more spending, a smaller tax take and a stronger budget bottom line than Howard and Costello. You cannot deliver more in spending, take less in tax revenue and deliver a stronger budget bottom line unless you are going to do something else, and that is what the article says Labor is planning. Labor is prepared to ditch or modify Howard government policies if and when it comes to office. I would like to know from the opposition what it is that it plans to ditch or remove. Is it the $25,000 for prisoners of war? Is it the change in the tax-free threshold for independent retirees? Is it the changes in tax for pensioners? Are they going to affect the seniors health card? What about Work for the Dole? The reality is that you cannot do it all. Labor is going to ditch some of the government's policies, and it is time to tell the Australian people which ones they are. You cannot go to an election with promises like those the Labor Party has had in the past: l-a-w law tax cuts, `We won't sell the Commonwealth Bank' and `We won't sell Qantas'. The reality is that you cannot do, as Mr Henderson in his article so clearly lays out, the seemingly impossible. You cannot deliver more spending, you cannot have a smaller tax take and then have a stronger budget bottom line. The only way to do that is to cut some of the programs. It is time the Labor Party came out, since it is ready for an election, so it says, and told the Australian people what it plans to do.The government's policies are out there. Their initiatives are there. We have been totally honest with the Australian people.Opposition members interjecting—FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Oh yes, we have, but you have not. It is all here. It is all in the budget speech. Where is yours?8I4Martin, Stephen, MPFK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—There they are. In fact, we have just had a complaint that we are pushing those through the parliament now. That is exactly right: we are pushing those initiatives through the parliament now so that older Australians and POWs can have their payments immediately. Why? Because we know that Labor is going to ditch some of those programs. You have to be honest with the Australian people.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! I interrupt the member for Dawson and remind her of her obligations under the standing orders to address her remarks through the chair. It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Dawson will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Questions Without Notice268742687414:00:0026874Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Treasurer's statement yesterday on the $300 pensioner payment that `the economy can benefit from it, the budget can afford it this financial year and, most of all, our older Australians deserve it'.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Good. I'm glad you think it's good. Prime Minister, with a budget surplus this year of $2.3 billion, why can't you give pensioners the full $1,000 you promised them? Isn't it true that if you give the pensioners their full $1,000—the $1,000 you promised them—the economy will still benefit from it, the budget can still afford it this financial year and, most of all, our older Australians deserve the full $1,000 that you promised?26874Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—That would come into the category of a most interesting question.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes, I bet it does, because it comes from a man who was a member of a government that gave no compensation to pensioners when they increased indirect taxation. People will never forget that in 1993, after promising before the 1993 election not to increase taxes, Labor increased all wholesale sales taxes, increased petrol excise and gave exactly zero compensation to Australian pensioners. It prompted Professor Neil Warren from the University of New South Wales, in 1998 in a paper on indirect taxation, to say that the 1993 indirect tax changes impacted most heavily on the unemployed and the aged. That is the record of the man who dares to ask me about compensation for pensioners! When you had the opportunity—when the Labor Party had the opportunity—to compensate the pensioners of Australia for taxation adjustments, you gave them no compensation at all. I am very proud to lead a government that has recognised the contribution of older Australians to the Australian community—and I do not have a youth branch of my party describing it as an old fogy's budget either, with the sort of contemptuous attitude being taken by Young Labor towards this budget.These measures have been made possible by the prudent fiscal policies carried out by the government over the last five years. Of one thing you can be absolutely certain: you would not be in a position to pay compensation to anybody, either in relation to a new taxation system or in a budget, if you were doing it off the back of 17 per cent interest rates, $96 billion of government debt and 11 per cent unemployment. The reality is that it is our good economic management—it is the work of the Treasurer and the government over the last five years—that has made it possible for us to deliver a budget that is being widely supported and widely acclaimed in the Australian community.2687514:04:0026875Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister outline to the House the benefits which will flow to the Australian community from sound economic and financial management? In particular, what are the benefits that will flow to older Australians as a result of this year's budget?26875Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Can I say, in reply to the honourable member for Gilmore, who is a magnificent representative of a cross-section of the Australian community, that this budget demonstrates very clearly to the Australian community what you can do if you keep your economic house in order. This budget demonstrates that, if you run successive surpluses, if you are prepared in your early years of government to take difficult but necessary decisions, if you are prepared to embrace industrial relations reform, if you are prepared to embrace tax reform, if you are prepared to embrace fiscal consolidation—in other words, if you are a government that governs for the longer term interests of the Australian community—you can put yourself in a position to deliver benefits. You can never deliver sustainable benefits to the Australian community if you have to go into the red to do it. It would have never been possible for the former government to have delivered benefits to the Australian community in a sustainable fashion because for five years the now Leader of the Opposition, the then Minister for Finance, ran up budget deficit after budget deficit, so much so that when we came to government not only did we inherit an economy that had been crippled by 17 per cent interest rates and a high of 11 per cent unemployment but also we inherited an economy that was burdened by $96 billion of government debt.UU5Horne, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, let me say it again in case the member for Paterson did not hear: you left us with $96 billion of government debt—$96 billion—and not only did you leave us with $96 million of government debt but you have tried for the last five years to stop us paying it back. So you compounded the political felony of leaving us with $96 billion of government debt by endeavouring to stop us paying it back. But, despite your best efforts, we have succeeded in repaying, on behalf of the Australian people, $60 billion of the $96 billion of government debt that the Beazley-Keating Labor government ran up.It is because of that and because we now have an interest rate structure and an economic structure that represent Australia to the world as a very strong economy that it is possible to deliver benefits to the Australian people. We do not have to go into the red to deliver these benefits; we are able to do it from the vantage point of a prudent fiscal position. I am delighted that we are able to recognise the contribution of older Australians. I am delighted to say to that section of the Australian people that has made such an enormous contribution to building the modern Australia that not only can we afford to pay a dividend to them out of good economic management and a recognition of the esteem in which the rest of the Australian community holds them but also we are able to recognise the very important fact—I think it is a fact that all members on this side of the House are aware of—that, although low interest rates are very good for home buyers and for small business, they are not always so welcome to people who are living off the interest income of their investments. That is one of the reasons why these measures will be widely welcomed by self-funded retirees. The benefits will be very significant in terms of not only the increases in the tax-free threshold but also the extension of the Commonwealth health card to another 50,000 retired Australians and the $300 benefit, which will go not only to full and part pensioners but to others. It is in every respect a very, very important recognition of the contribution that older Australians have made. Of course, it comes on top of many other measures that we have introduced. There is no section of the Australian community that has benefited more than older Australians from the measures this government took to restore private health insurance in Australia. Private health insurance was virtually destroyed by the former Labor government. They ran it down. It was bleeding to death when we came into government. We were heading towards a level of about 30 per cent of people with private health insurance; it is now in the order of 45 per cent. I am also proud to say that in this budget, as well as recognising the restoration of private health insurance, we have injected hundreds of millions of dollars into the further strengthening of the Medicare system. We have put money into treating mental illness, diabetes, cervical cancer and asthma—conditions that affect many Australian families. Something in the order of two million Australians are affected by asthma. So, in so many ways, this is a budget that delivers benefits to a cross-section of the Australian community. The delivery of those benefits is possible only because we have run the economy well over the last five years. If we had not run the economy well over the last five years, if the Treasurer had not done such a good job over the last five years, we would not now be in a position to deliver these benefits to the Australian people. I think the budget is warmly welcomed, and I think that there is very good reason for the good reception it has received from the Australian people.2687614:11:0026876Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to his statement about the $300 pension bonus:The Government is making this payment because the economy can benefit from it, the Budget can afford it this financial year and, most of all, our older Australians deserve it.Treasurer, isn't it a fact—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is entitled to be heard in silence.DT4Mr CREAN—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Treasurer, isn't it a fact that your budget this financial year could afford the full $1,000 that the government promised aged people and that they deserve it? Isn't the problem that the $300 GST compensation is a one-off—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition cannot advance an argument.DT4Mr CREAN—but the GST remains forever?26876Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Can I remind the House that on 1 July last year the government increased all pensions by four per cent and it has been maintaining a two per cent real increase—that is, over and above price rises and price rises which include tax effects. We did that because we were mindful of the way in which the Labor Party cheated older Australians in 1993. In 1993 the Labor Party put up all wholesale sales tax rates. They put one rate up from 10 to 12, another up from 20 to 22 and another up from 30 to 32. They stole back income tax cuts. They lifted petrol excise. And the compensation that was given to pensioners was—nothing. Nothing! Not only did the government increase the pension and maintain it in excess of the cost of living, in addition to the dollar for dollar bonuses which the government paid from 1 July; out of this year's budget we pay to all pensioners and part-pensioners a bonus of $300—2.2 million Australians and a bonus of $300. But I must say that I am confused. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been out on radio over the last 24 hours saying that he thinks the budget surplus should be larger, yet his first question today is, `Why didn't you spend more of it?' He thinks the budget surplus is not large enough, but then he gets up and says, `Why didn't you spend some more of it?' This is a party with not a policy shred in its bones. It wants to say that it is in favour of budget surpluses, it criticises us for not spending enough and it wants to roll back the tax base. Put the three of them together and you have a configuration that could be thought up only by Beazley and Crean.When the previous question was asked, I asked one of my colleagues a thought that came into my head. Labor's proposition, I think, was this: `Seeing as the budget surplus this year is $2.3 billion, why didn't you give a larger dividend to pensioners—larger than $300?' I asked myself this question: what dividend do you think pensioners could have been paid out of a $10 billion deficit? The last Labor Party budget was a $10 billion deficit. No wonder there was no bonus to pensioners, no wonder there was no increase, no wonder there was no cut in income taxes—the income taxes which had been put into l-a-w—and no wonder there was no compensation. You do not pay a benefit out of a $10 billion deficit. Before this government came to office, we did not have arguments about the size of surpluses; there quite simply were not any. The question was: how big would the deficits be?2687714:15:0026877Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—Would the Treasurer please advise the House how responsible budget policy has enabled the government to reduce Labor's legacy of debt and redirect spending to priority community services?26877Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The budget is in surplus in the next financial year, with a budgeted forecast cash surplus of $1.5 billion, the fifth consecutive surplus, the largest run of surplus budgets since before the Whitlam government. We are undoing the damage that was done by the Whitlam government—I think now generally acknowledged as Australia's worst economic managers—and we are now going back to record some budget outcomes that we had not seen since the 1960s.As this House well knows, in its last five budgets the Labor Party accumulated $80 billion worth of debt. Let me just put this in context as to how you accumulate debt. The first thing you do is you run a deficit—that is, you spend more than your revenues. Then the Labor Party sold assets. But that still was not enough to cover the deficit. Then they went out, after selling assets, and borrowed on financial markets $80 billion. They expended the whole of the proceeds of their asset sales—back in the days when you were pro privatisation, Old Tiger—of the privatisation but still could not balance the budget and still went to the financial markets and borrowed $80 billion.One of the proudest achievements of this government is that, by the end of the forecast financial year, we will have repaid $60 billion of Labor's $80 billion debt. That produces for the budget an interest saving of $4 billion a year, and that $4 billion can now be reinvested in tax reductions, it can be reinvested in the health system, it can be reinvested in building a better defence for Australia, it can be reinvested in strengthening our borders against plant and animal disease and it can be reinvested for pensioners and older Australians. Because this government did the work, we can now reinvest for the future. But I want to say this: having paid off $60 billion of Labor's $80 billion debt, we are only three-quarters of the way there. There is still more work to be done, and this government intends to do it, to deliver good outcomes for the Australian people. 2687814:18:0026878Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you confirm that under your budget a retired married politician living on a parliamentary pension with a joint income of $80,000 per year will receive an ongoing tax reduction of $2,844 per year, or $55 per week, a seniors health card and a pensioners telephone allowance of $17.20 per quarter but that a full-rate pensioner living on $10,500 per year—9V5Pyne, Chris, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Sturt will exercise some courtesy.2V5Mr SWAN—will get a one-off payment of $300? Prime Minister, how can you say your budget is fair?26878Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I assume the question is based on a notional application of the measures announced by the Treasurer last night in relation to self-funded retirees and taxation. The member nods. Also, as I heard the question, it was in relation to a hypothetical example of somebody on $80,000 of income. The member may have overlooked that the increased rebate announced last night phases out for a couple at $58,244. Therefore, your example is wrong.2687814:21:0026878Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House how yesterday's budget further reduces the tax burden on Australian businesses and families?26878Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the member for Petrie for her question. The government's income tax cuts mean that a worker on average wages, who under Labor's tax system used to pay a top marginal tax rate of 43 cents in the dollar, now pays a top marginal tax rate of only 30 cents in the dollar. That is a reduction from 43c to 30c. I do not know why, but the Labor Party, for some reason, believe that average workers should pay 43 cents in the dollar tax on every additional dollar that they earn. We do not. We think that people who are going out there and working hard ought to get the rewards of their effort. Isn't that a great thing for average workers? They can go from $20,000 to $50,000 and never face a marginal tax rate above 30 per cent.The tax reform that was also announced last night for self-funded retirees of age pension age and for age pensioners cuts their tax bills and means that individuals need not pay tax or the Medicare levy until they get to $20,000. I want to put this in context. Before this government was elected, if you were a self-funded retiree, your tax-free threshold was $5,400; you started paying tax after $5,400. As a result of the measures which were announced last night, if you are a single income self-funded retiree of age pension age, you start paying tax above $20,000. I do not know why the Labor Party had it in for self-funded retirees in the way that it did. The Labor Party had a mind-set against people who used to fund their own retirement. The Labor Party—because of its socialist origin, no doubt—resented those people who had funded their own retirement and wanted to tax them and to penalise them. It resented people who were earning average wages. But in last night's budget we increased the tax-free threshold for senior Australians, both age pensioners and those of age pension age. We cut the company tax rate from 34 per cent to 30 per cent and we abolished financial institutions duty. You now no longer need to pay tax when you put money into a bank account or pay a mortgage or a credit card. We abolished stamp duty on listed shares. We are refunding excess imputation credits. We introduced new capital gains tax concessions for listed investment companies and we are bringing about the new small business taxation system.I was speaking to one of our friends in the media last night, who said to me, `This tax cut for self-funded retirees applies back to 1 July last year; that's a bit tricky, isn't it?' I said, `Tricky is not when you backdate tax cuts; tricky is when you put tax cuts into l-a-w.' The difference between Labor and the coalition is that Labor believes in tax cuts which are l-a-w. This government believes in tax cuts which are n-o-w—now—paid from 1 July and eligible to self-funded retirees as soon as they put in their tax return. 2687914:25:0026879Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, isn't it a fact that your facts sheet, distributed in the budget lockup last night, shows that a retired politician with a joint income of $80,000 a year will get an ongoing tax reduction of $2,844 per year, or $55 a week, a seniors health card and a pensioners telephone allowance of $17.20 per quarter? Haven't you misled the parliament?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley would be aware that any accusation of misleading the parliament must be by substantive motion.26879Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I would remind both the member for Lilley and the House that I was very careful in the answer that I gave. I looked at the member for Lilley and said that I assumed that his question was based upon the measures for self-funded retirees, and he nodded assent. He nodded that it was based on self-funded retirees. I was not in the budget lockup last night and I repeat the answer that I gave. The answer that I gave was that, as a result of the measures introduced in relation to self-funded retirees, there is a phase-out of $58,244 and therefore in the example quoted—PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat! There is no point of order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I repeat that the answer I gave was based upon the measures in relation to self-funded retirees. As to the application of taxation cuts introduced last year, self-evidently a person on $80,000 has a tax cut.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—I seek leave to table this document from the office of the Treasurer, which attaches a table providing details of tax reductions for senior Australians.Leave granted.2687914:28:0026879Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—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 people living in regional, rural and remote Australia will benefit from last night's federal budget initiatives? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative policies in these areas?26879Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question. I note with interest that the National Farmers Federation and Agforce, in highlighting the feelings that they had about the budget, went first to what they described as `prudent economic management'. They went first up to the issue of us having retired debt and of not having to fork out vast amounts of taxpayers' dollars to service interest on debt. It is interesting that they should have done so, but when you stop and think about why, it is quite easy to see why they have done that. The secret to lower interest rates in particular lies in fiscal commonsense and good management. Since 1995 the interest rate reductions, which, as the Treasurer has often pointed to, have been of great value to, say, homebuyers, are saving Australia's farmers probably well over $1 billion a year—over $1 billion a year that is not leaving the farm sector, let alone the small business and the home buying communities in rural and regional Australia. That is there for their economic advantage. At the same time, we are seeing an improvement in the terms of trade for agriculture—the first I can remember—where prices are rising faster than costs. This is, again, a reflection on economic management. Indeed, as the Minister for Trade reminds me, exports are now higher than our imports—again, something we have not seen for a very long time. All of the $3 billion or so of new expenditure items that have been welcomed in this budget package have been made against the backdrop of prudent financial management. In other words, there is no red ink all over the place; we are still well and truly in the black with a surplus. These new funding measures are valuable and have been widely welcomed. They include $163 million for improved telecommunications, mobile phone coverage, better Internet access and higher Internet speeds. Around $1.8 billion has been allocated to roads, and $110 million for the Alice to Darwin railway alone in the area of rail. There is further assistance to the dairy industry. Very significantly, there is an expansion of our rural health package for doctors and GPs, and now nurses as well—$130-odd million to help with more nurses in rural and regional areas. In education, there has been a very significant increase in the number of Commonwealth funded undergraduate student places for regional higher education. These measures are in addition to other valuable programs—Networking the Nation, Roads to Recovery, Regional Solutions, the rural transaction centres and Agriculture Advancing Australia. The National Heritage Trust has been extended by another $1 billion. There are measures in the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. It is probably not altogether surprising that it has been not only the NFF, Agforce and other rural bodies that have welcomed the budget in very strong terms. The federal president of the Isolated Children's Parents Association, Megan McNicholl, particularly welcomed the increase in undergraduate places, the rural nursing scholarships, the $22 million for the CAP—the country areas program—the improved telecommunications access, the continuation of that very important service provided by the rural financial counsellors and the $65 million to improve access of remote families to quality child care.The member for Mitchell had a letter, which he passed on to me, from the CEO of Charter Freightlines and Storage Pty Ltd. The CEO wrote to the government this morning and we asked whether he would mind us recording for posterity his remarks, and he said, `No.' He said:The investment this government is making in road transport, be it in roads or operating costs, goes a long way to maintaining this country's competitive advantage. He said:This foresight is something which has been lacking in the past but which has been brought into full focus by this government.I was asked about alternative policies. In this whole area of regional and rural policies we have nothing from the ALP—nothing at all. There are no alternatives. We had all of those promises, when the member for Batman took over from the member for Dickson, about regional policies being fully developed and being in the drawer ready for release. Of course, when he got there he said that in fact the drawer was empty—there was nothing there. And it remains the case. We can only go on their record and the very few things that they have said. I am looking at some of the things I have just touched on. I could challenge the Labor Party to commit to continue the Roads to Recovery program. That is the one they called the `boondoggle'. They could continue the Black Spots Road Safety Program, the one they axed in government. They could continue funding for the National Heritage Trust. That is the one they said is a rort. They could also give us a commitment to continue to improve telecommunications in rural and regional Australia, because all we know in that area from what they did was that they shut down mobile phone services.Distinguished Visitors2688010000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the European Parliament, led by the Hon. Mr Nicholson. On behalf of all members of the parliament, I extend to them a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice268802688014:35:0026880Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and it follows the previous two that he has been asked. Is he aware of these fact sheets, which were circulated in the press gallery lockup yesterday and used in today's papers? Is he aware of the Treasurer's office heading, `The attached tables provide details of tax reductions for senior Australians as a result of the measures to increase the effective tax-free thresholds and the Medicare levy threshold'? Prime Minister, is it not a fact that you have included in these fact sheets not just the money announced last night in the budget but also the value of the tax cuts handed out in July this year, but that you did not tell anyone? In the case of a retiree over pension age earning $35,000 a year, aren't the budget measures worth only $430 of the $1,400 you claimed as a reduction in tax in these fact sheets? Haven't you misrepresented your budget package to the media and older Australians, and aren't you just being tricky again? 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is aware that the latter part of his last sentence was inappropriate in the question.26881Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—They say that the member for Lilley is close to the Leader of the Opposition—he certainly goes to great lengths to bail him out of an embarrassment. Yes, I am aware of this document and it does contain in it the words that you read out. It also contains in it words that you did not read out. It goes on to say at the bottom— and it is clearly marked next to `single person' with an `a'—`Reductions also reflect cuts in the personal marginal tax rate from 1 July 2000.' I think the Leader of the Opposition is being very tricky.2688114:38:0026881Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister outline to the House how the Howard government is ensuring that all Australians continue to be served by a world-class and safe public health system?26881Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The government is absolutely committed to a world-class and safe public hospital system, and there are four items in the budget that are great news to anyone who needs or works in the public hospital system. The first is that we deliver on the fourth year of the Australian health care agreements with $6.7 billion of funding to the states—a record amount—a $1 billion increase and a 28 per cent increase over the life of the agreement over and above what Labor negotiated in 1993. We also allow states to retain very significant additional moneys because of not proceeding with the clawback provisions of the Australian health care agreements, which will mean about $1 billion a year to them.The second item for hospitals is the funding of the Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care. Adverse events in hospitals are a major problem right around the world. No country has worked out how to deal with them adequately. I am pleased that the former President of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Professor Bruce Barraclough, is chairing such a council. We have given a commitment of $25 million over four years to make that council work. It will be involved in performance measurement and improvement initiatives in the public hospital system, legislative reforms and design of services for safer care.The third item for hospitals in the budget is an extension of the National Hospital Demonstration Program, which was designed to finish on 30 June this year. This has been a great success in driving change in public hospital management, something that is very difficult to do in a federal system. We will be providing $7.4 million for projects in 24 hospitals and this will continue work with waiting list management, theatre management and other things to make hospitals run better and be able to treat more people. The final initiative for hospitals is $16 million to fund the first two years of HealthConnect. HealthConnect is a world-class innovation for highly secure patient information to be transferred so that a person does not need to have a new medical history taken every time they see a new different health care provider. This is an enormously difficult area where a number of countries are working on similar projects. Australia is leading the world in this area, and this commitment of funding will ensure that the Health Insurance Commission continues to do that, with particular benefit for people at the hospital-GP interface. These are basically practical solutions to problems in our health care system. They build on the five previous budgets of the Howard government. Each of those budgets has made a significant contribution to ensuring that we remain at the forefront of world-class health care. 2688214:41:0026882Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is it not the case that the extended eligibility which you announced last night for the Commonwealth health card does not apply to self-funded retirees under the age of 65? Why then did you say this morning to Alan Jones, without qualification, `We have extended the eligibility of the Commonwealth health card to self-funded retirees'? Are you not doing to self-funded retirees what you did to pensioners when you promised all of them a $1,000 bonus but gave it only to some?26882Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I want every member of the government, and indeed every member of the opposition, to note that this is the totality of the devastating attack on the budget by the Leader of the Opposition. A self-funded retiree is normally regarded as a person who looks after himself or herself, who is of retirement age, which for a man is normally regarded as being around 65 and for a woman in her early sixties. I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. I don't think he does. It is very plain that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand how a tax rebate operates. Otherwise he and the member for Lilley would not have got into the ridiculous mess they did with the last three questions. I do not think he understands the true definition of a self-funded retiree. You would expect that from a party which, when it was in government, showed an absolute contempt for older Australians. That question from the Leader of the Opposition provokes me to refer to a favourite piece of reading of mine—Australian Labor Party, Election 1993, Policies for Older Australians. One of the policies said:Labor's commitment to removing all age and service pensioners from the tax system by 1995—Listen to that—`all age and service pensioners'. It gets better as it goes on:will benefit pensioners paid at the part rate as well as providing some assistance to retirees with incomes beyond the pension cut out point. Labor is working on the details of implementing this proposal and believes that the next step should involve consultation with input from community pensioner and retiree organisations through a discussion paper to be released this year.That was before the election. On 18 March 1993—that was five days after the election—in one of Joe Dawkins's more memorable contributions to political integrity, this is what he had to say:Look, that is something which of course the Government would want to review. We haven't got any definite undertakings about that and basically I think it was an undertaking given at a much earlier stage.What about six weeks earlier? Listen to this—this is the piece de resistance. He says:It is certainly not an undertaking we have renewed—you can be certain of that—and I certainly don't feel under any obligation to follow through with it.But we get the explanation the following day. The Australian Financial Review solemnly reported:Labor advisers say the commitment was included in the policy platform by mistake.So much for Labor's care about older Australians. I say to the retired people of the Australian community: if you want justice, look to the coalition; if you want a fair go, look to the coalition; if you want respect for the contribution you have made to the Australian nation, look to the coalition.2688214:46:0026882Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister inform the House how the massive increase in funding for quarantine in the federal budget will help safeguard Australia's primary industries from the threats of exotic disease and pests?26882Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for his interest in quarantine issues. This particular initiative by the federal government in last night's budget certainly builds on our excellent record in improving Australia's quarantine services. In previous budgets we have increased resources for border activities by 50 per cent and added to the number of staff available for that purpose by about two-thirds. That contrasts very strongly with Labor's last years in office, when they allowed quarantine services to run down. They gave a very low priority to protecting Australia's disease free status and put at risk our nation's reputation in that regard. But this government has turned that around. In last night's budget we saw the biggest boost in quarantine expenditure in our nation's history. It is particularly appropriate that we should take that kind of action when Australians have been noticing the impact of foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom. It has had a devastating effect on farming and the UK economy—with something like $12 billion in lost production for UK farmers. The tourist industry estimates it will lose $7 billion this year as a result of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the UK. At risk, if we had a disease of this nature in Australia, would be our $15 billion worth of export markets, particularly in the livestock industries. It is therefore essential that we maintain a strong barrier and a strong protective network to keep our country clean and green.So over the next four years there will be almost $600 million provided to boost quarantine services. It is proposed that the number of AQIS and Customs border staff be increased by more than 1,200. The number of dog detector teams in use at airports, international mail exchanges and seaports will triple to 98. AQIS will acquire another 49 X-ray machines to bring the total number in service to 58. There will also be $69 million devoted to modifications at airports around Australia to accommodate this new equipment and staff and also to upgrade the mail centres in Sydney and Melbourne and construct a new international mail centre in Sydney. Once these measures are in place, all cargo and mail entering Australia will be inspected or X-rayed—100 per cent. All arriving air passengers will be screened and in most cases their luggage will be inspected or X-rayed by AQIS officers. Indeed, we will achieve 100 per cent rates of inspection or opening of baggage at most airports for 24 hours a day.These announcements massively upgrade our quarantine capabilities and help protect our vital clean and green image—one of our most precious national assets. It is the sort of thing that can be delivered when sound economic policy is in place—something Labor could never have done, even if they had wanted to. The reality is that when they were in government, in spite of their record deficits, they allowed quarantine services to run down. They gave these services a low priority. Fortunately for Australian agriculture, there has been a change of government and a change of attitude towards quarantine.2688314:51:0026883Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Treasurer. Isn't it a fact that more than 120,000 self-funded retirees over the age of 55 but under pension age—that is, one in four self-funded retirees—will receive no extra benefit whatsoever from the changes you announced last night to the tax-free threshold, telephone allowance and seniors health card for older Australians?9V5Pyne, Chris, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Sturt!DT4Mr CREAN—Treasurer, are you saying that these Australians did not suffer under your GST?9V5Pyne, Chris, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Sturt.26883Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Social Security Act defines eligibility age for the age pension—that is, for retired persons—as 65 for men and 61½ for women. And, as I understand it, it is rising for women. It is rising, I think, as a result of Labor Party legislation, because you took the view that women should not retire or be considered retired at the age of 60. You took the view that, with people living longer, the retirement age for women should be raised to the same as for men, which is 65. You cannot become eligible for the age pension, because you are not considered to be retired and no longer required to go into the work force, until such time as you are 65. That is the qualification for the age pension. A self-funded retiree is a person who is of the same age—somebody who has retired from the work force. In relation to somebody who is below 65, they have never qualified for the age pension—never under the Labor Party. The policy has always been—from the Labor Party and from the coalition—that, until you are 65, you are not considered to be retired from the work force and, therefore, you are not eligible for the age pension. The same rule applies to pensioners and to self-funded retirees. What we did in last night's budget for people who are below 65—that is, people who do not qualify for the age pension because they are not considered to be of retirement age—was change the assets and income test so that their superannuation is not taken into account in income support. These are people who, under the Labor Party and under the coalition, are considered not to be eligible for the age pension and are therefore eligible—8I4Martin, Stephen, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham is warned!CT4Mr COSTELLO—for Jobstart and Newstart allowances. The measure that is introduced in relation to them is that their superannuation is excluded from those tests. People who are of retirement age—whether they be a pensioner or a self-funded retiree—as a result of last night's changes have a tax-free threshold of $20,000. If you are a self-funded retiree, under the Australian Labor Party your tax-free threshold was $5,400. The Labor Party said that if you were a self-funded retiree—which they defined as somebody over 65—you started paying tax at $5,400 but, if you were a pensioner, you did not start paying tax until you had income of $11,000. The Labor Party said, `You should be penalised for being a self-funded retiree.' The Labor Party thought that people who saved for their own retirement and were independent should be penalised. The Labor Party did not like people who saved and looked after themselves. The Labor Party never gave a benefit for people who took out private health insurance. That is because the Labor Party never thought that people who looked after themselves should have some help from the tax system. That is the difference between the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties. We value people who save, we reward thrift and we want to encourage independence.2688414:56:0026884St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister outline to the House how the Howard government has continued to strengthen Australia's Medicare and improve the treatment of chronic illness—in particular, diabetes, asthma and mental illness?26884Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Medicare was designed as a health financing system and, as such, it has done very well. Medicare has had significant shortcomings. Under Medicare, only 53 per cent of our kids were properly immunised and we were having epidemics of measles. Under Medicare, Aboriginal Australians and people in rural Australia missed out on significant parts of health care. Medicare never focused on prevention; in fact, it actively discouraged prevention. It never focused on early intervention and it was not well placed to cope with chronic disease management. We redress that problem in this budget. Expenditure of $290 million over four years will go into treating chronic illness in a way never attempted in this country and not attempted by any other nation previously. We focus, as the honourable member suggests, on diabetes, asthma, mental illness and also cervical cancer.Diabetes is a growing problem in Australia. On average, five people in this chamber will have diabetes; six people in this chamber will have diabetes and not realise that they have it; 25 people in this chamber will develop diabetes during their lifetime. Diabetes has a good-news story, though, because, if it is appropriately managed, the nasty complications are avoided. So, for the first time ever, we will give GPs, who provide 80 per cent of the treatment of diabetes in Australia, incentives to appropriately manage diabetes and to prevent illness happening, and we will support and back this up through divisions of general practice. Asthma affects two million Australians, 17 per cent of whom have moderate to severe symptoms. It is the biggest single cause of hospital admission of Australian children, yet asthma is dramatically undertreated in Australia. In the budget, we propose what we call the `three-plus steps' to asthma management, which will involve at least three separate visits to the doctor, involving assessment, a care plan and regular review of the individual with their doctor, because asthma can be largely self-managed and an enormous amount of illness can be prevented. Cervical cancer is treated variably in Australia. It is estimated that 90 per cent of cervical cancer is completely preventable, yet only 50 per cent is prevented in Australia. Thirty-six per cent of women in Australia do not get regular pap smears. This is particularly prevalent in women from non-English-speaking backgrounds, women from rural Australia and indigenous women. We will be rewarding GPs who do appropriate cervical cancer screening of women at high risk and we will also be rewarding GPs for the overall level of cervical cancer screening in their practices. In this way, Medicare will actually be paying doctors for outcomes. We tried this with the immunisation incentives— it worked. It will also work with cervical cancer and, in the reasonable and foreseeable future, will give us one of the best rates of cervical cancer screening in the world.Finally, the honourable member mentioned mental illness. Mental illness costs Australia in lost productivity around $5 billion a year and by the year 2020 it will be the second highest burden of illness in Australia; and yet mental illness is dramatically undertreated in Australia. We propose to make a very substantial change to that with the package in last night's budget. We will reward general practitioners for appropriate counselling for mental illness, by introducing a new Medicare rebate that rewards doctors who are appropriately trained and undertake counselling. We will have a substantial education program amongst GPs, because not many GPs are properly trained in non-pharmacological methods, particularly cognitive behavioural therapy; and, for the first time ever, we will give GPs access to allied health services—not just psychiatrists but also psychologists—that will enable the public to get access to a range of services they have never had before. This will remove the significant barriers that exist in Australia to early identification and appropriate early intervention into mental illness. It will build on Medicare and will change it from a system simply focused on money to one focused on preventing illness.2688515:00:0026885Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you confirm that the budget projects higher unemployment from now all the way through until June next year? Isn't it true that this rising unemployment means that urgent employment assistance is needed now, but that nearly all of your announced changes do not occur until as late as September next year, 16 months away? Prime Minister, doesn't mutual obligation require you to do something now and not claim credit for assistance which is really on lay-by?26885Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The budget papers disclose some—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Oh, so you were at the lockup, after all.ZD4Mr HOWARD—No. I read them afterwards. That is more than you have done.Government member interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes. I can actually read, Martin. It is more than your leader can do. He does not understand a rebate. I say to the honourable member for Dickson that it is the case that the budget papers show a level of unemployment which is slightly higher than at present. There is no backing or filling about that. It is, of course, dramatically lower than it was when you were in office. It always passes strange, the stridency and confidence with which members of the Labor Party frontbench stand up here day after day and ask questions breathlessly about unemployment. When your leader was minister for unemployment, it went to 11 per cent. It went to a post-Depression high. It was the highest level for 60 years in this country, the worst level: you could stretch from somewhere in Victoria to Townsville the number of people who were out of work. I think the essence of the question from the member for Dickson was: if there is a slightly worsening employment situation, what are the measures to respond? Well, the measures to respond are that, firstly, you have a strongly growing economy—and all the indications are that, coming off the relative aberrant nature of the December quarter figure, there is plenty of evidence that the Australian economy is rebounding. I am sure that the member for Dickson read that material in the budget papers last night. I would venture the view to the member for Dickson that the measures that we introduced within two days of getting the December quarter account figures, to stimulate the housing industry, will do more than any labour market programs in the short term to reduce unemployment. In the end, generating more jobs through greater economic activity is the best antidote to unemployment. But seeing that the member for Dickson has asked me a question, I take the opportunity of reminding the member for Dickson that this government has done something that no Labor government did. The Whitlam government did not do it; the Hawke government did not do it; the Keating government did not do it. This government has done something that no postwar Labor government has ever dreamt of doing, and that is to tackle the long-term problem of restructuring the welfare system. What this government is proposing to do—UU5Horne, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson is warned!ZD4Mr HOWARD—under the stewardship of my colleagues the Minister for Family and Community Services and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business is to develop a culture which encourages people to seek work opportunities. We have in fact achieved far more than you achieved in relation to reductions of long-term unemployment. We have achieved reductions in youth unemployment and we have achieved reductions at every level.One of the things that Labor frontbenchers find very hard to accept is that, in those areas which you always regarded as your own— that is, things relating to care of the disadvantaged; things relating to decent wages for working people; things relating to helping the unemployed—we have done far better than you ever did.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—I know it really does cut to the quick on these things. I watch the expressions on their faces, on even the seemingly benign member for Batman, whenever I trot out those real wage figures. I remind the member for Batman that, under 13 years of Labor government, you boasted about cutting the wages of the workers; whereas, under this government, real wages have risen, interest rates have fallen, unemployment has fallen, we are tackling reform not only of the tax system and the labour market system but also of the welfare system; and we are doing it with the cooperation of the welfare sector. We value their contribution to Australian society, just as we value the contribution of older Australians to the building of our community.2688615:07:0026886Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, what good news is there for older Australians in last night's Howard government budget?26886Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I would like to thank the member for Herbert for his excellent question. I know he has a passionate commitment to all Australians, particularly older Australians. I would like to endorse some of our magnificent achievements for older Australians last night—in particular, that 1.8 million pensioners will this year receive a $300 payment up front. David Deans, the chief executive of the National Seniors Association, said today on Perth radio:We are very positive about the budget. Self-funded retirees benefits are very positive. The bonus payment to people on the age pension is again a very positive thing.This is in addition to the savings bonus that we paid to over 2.1 million older Australians this year, and we are expecting more. The average payment for those on pensions is over $734 and for self-funded retirees the average payment of the supplementary bonus is just under $1,765. For retirees there is an increase in the tax-free threshold, which will also benefit pensioners. This is recognition of self-funded retirees particularly in that, if they wish to work more, they will save because of the less taxation that they will pay. You have to ask yourself: what is the Labor Party policy on older Australians? As was articulated before, their policy, particularly on self-funded retirees, when they came into government in the early eighties was to take away any incentive for private health insurance. They were the government that introduced capital gains tax, which had a major impact on self-funded retirees. It is this government that has helped reduce that, and of course it is this government that has provided tax cuts and also raised the tax-free threshold not just for retirees but also for pensioners. What would pensioners have got if the Australian Labor Party had been in government? They would be receiving $22 less, because it was this government—the Liberal-National Party government—that linked pensions to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings, and this year from 1 July single pensions are up $30 and couples pensions are up $50.You have to ask yourself: what is the Labor Party policy? They do not have a policy. Their policy to compensate older Australians was zero when they introduced the wholesale sales tax. Their policy to compensate self-funded retirees was zero when they took away private health insurance. You have to ask yourself: what are the tactics of the Australian Labor Party today? The member for Lilley—you might be Swan by name, but you are behaving like a goose today!2688715:11:0026887Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts saying last Monday `the privatisation of Telstra is not on my agenda'? If the privatisation of Telstra is not on the government's agenda, then why do the proceeds from the full privatisation of Telstra feature in last night's budget?26887Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The person who asked the question would know all about consistency when it comes to privatisation. There are plenty of members of the old Commonwealth Bank Officers Association who still have those letters written in blood in the early 1990s about how Labor would turn in its grave—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Members on my right! OK6Nairn, Gary, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER— The member for Eden-Monaro!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific: why, given that they said they were not doing it, are there numbers in the budget for it?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am aware of the question. The Prime Minister had been answering for all of 15 seconds and for that reason I had not intervened.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The government's position on Telstra is that we, first of all, fix things in the bush. You do not proceed with the full privatisation until you fix things in the bush. I am very pleased to say to rural Australia, seeing that the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question, that we have now advanced a very long way towards fixing communications challenges in the bush. There has been a dramatic improvement. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that has been made possible—once again, in the face of total opposition from the Labor Party—because so much of it has been financed out of part sales of Telstra to date. The budget papers and the budget figuring in relation to Telstra reflect the priority that has been stated by the minister, been stated by me, been stated by the Deputy Prime Minister and been stated by many other people— and that is that, first of all, you fix the things identified by Besley, you improve the communications infrastructure in the bush, and only when that is completed do you turn your attention to a further sale of shares in Telstra. This has been our position for well over two, perhaps now up to almost three, years. I contrast it to the bobbing and weaving, could I put it that way, of the Leader of the Opposition. When he was in government he said one thing on privatisation before an election and after he had scrambled back into office he said exactly the other thing. I well remember a conversation the Leader of the Opposition had with me on the eve of a budget in which he was soliciting the support of the then opposition to pass some privatisation legislation through the parliament. He said, `Can we count on the opposition to support this legislation?' And I said, `Yes, you can count on the support of the opposition because we have always supported the privatisation of this particular asset.' He was worried about the Democrats, but he was probably worried about his own backbench, so he needed the support of the opposition. Unlike the Labor Party, when we were in opposition and we saw a good policy we supported it. We supported it in the national interest, as we supported the floating of the Australian dollar, as we supported reform of the tariff system. By contrast, the Labor Party has opposed every attempt made by this government to reform and improve and strengthen the Australian economy. It will forever be to the credit of the coalition that, despite the guerrilla tactics of the Australian Labor Party, we have succeeded in the last five years in dramatically strengthening the Australian economy, to the benefit of the Australian entire population.2688815:16:0026888Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Minister, in addition to the one-off payment of $25,000 to ex-prisoners of war of Japan announced by the Treasurer last night, how will the veterans and war widows community benefit from the budget?26888Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Makin for her question and acknowledge the interest she has in the welfare and care that we give to veterans in her electorate. There was some $440 million in veterans care entitlements contained in the budget papers last night. The Treasurer announced in his speech last night that the government would be paying a one-off ex gratia payment of $25,000 to prisoners of war of Japan who were alive on 1 January this year. It will also be made available to the war widows of prisoners of war of Japan and to the civilian detainees and internees who were prisoners of the Japanese during the Second World War.No amount of compensation could ever compensate for the horrific treatment of Australian prisoners of war at the hands of the Japanese during the Second World War. I am reminded when considering the survivors of the prisoner of war camps, and I want to record in the parliament today, that the sole remaining survivor of the horrific Sandakan death march, Owen Campbell, who lives in the electorate of Longman, will be one of the recipients of this ex gratia payment of $25,000. I mention that because, as those who know the history of the Sandakan death march will understand, all but six on that death march died or were killed by the Japanese, and those six only survived because they were able to escape.The other measures that were in the budget last night relate to our war widows who had remarried prior to 1984. A recommendation came forward in 1984 to allow those war widows who had previously lost that entitlement because they had remarried to have that entitlement reinstated. The Labor Party did adopt part of that recommendation in that they allowed those who remarried after 1984 to keep their war widows entitlement. That has created two classes of war widows: those who remarried prior to 1984 and those who remarried after 1984. We are fixing up this injustice, and that will help some 3,500 war widows who have been denied access to their war widows pension simply because they had remarried prior to 1984. They will now receive this pension entitlement. It also will apply to war widows from the conflicts of Vietnam and Korea who had married prior to 1984. So it is not just those widows of the Second World War or perhaps in some cases the First World War; it is about justice for our war widows. It is this government that is fixing up an injustice which has been here far too long. Another initiative announced in the budget last night is full access to the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for veterans from British, Commonwealth and Allied forces who have lived in Australia for more than 10 years and are aged 70 or more. Some of those veterans who have made Australia home have come from Britain, New Zealand, Canada, the Netherlands, Poland, Belgium, France, the former Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway and the United States of America. All these British, Commonwealth and Allied veterans served shoulder to shoulder with our service men and women during the Second World War. Many of them have made Australia their home. It is only fair that they have the same access to the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme as our Australian service men and women. That will benefit some 47,000 British, Commonwealth and Allied veterans. It is once again about justice and equity for those British, Commonwealth and Allied veterans.So, Mr Speaker, if you want justice for prisoners of war, it is the Liberal and National parties that are going to deliver. If you want justice for war widows who remarried prior to 1984, it is the Liberal and National parties that are going to deliver for them. And if you want justice for the British, Commonwealth and Allied veterans, it is the Liberal and National parties, once again, that are going to care for our veterans and deliver justice for them.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Miscellaneous2688915:21:0026889SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I am pleased to inform the House that, at the April meetings of the international Association of Secretaries-General of Parliaments, the Clerk of the House was elected vice-president of the association. I understand this is the first time that an Australian has been given such an honour.4I4McLeay, Leo, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the Chief Opposition Whip. The Clerk's unfailing courtesy is never more evident than in his dealings with other parliaments, and I am sure this particular capacity of his and the many others he exhibits will continue to serve him well in this new role.Honourable members—Hear, hear! Personal Explanations2688915:22:0026889Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?83UCox, David, MPMr COX—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—On 15 May a letter from the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs was published in the Australian criticising it for accepting my interpretation of remarks he had made in this parliament. The minister claimed that I was attempting to mislead the public on the government's achievements in schools. On 27 November last year the minister told parliament:It is this government that has put in place the vocational education programs in the senior years of schooling which are lifting retention rates in government schools from just over 60 per cent to over 80 per cent. I was faithfully reported in the Australian making an accurate statement that the year 12 retention rate in government schools in the year 2000 was 66 per cent and that the minister has misled the parliament.Questions to the Speaker268892688915:23:0026889Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question to you relating to questions on notice. The matter simply arises because in the Hansard of yesterday there were a number of replies to a series of questions which I placed on notice to various ministers, and I example question No. 2440, a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services. There are also questions addressed to the Prime Minister and a number of other ministers. The circumstances are that in no instance has any formal response been delivered to my office. I understand that the normal courtesies of this place are that a reply from the minister is delivered to the member seeking the information and then reported in the Hansard. I checked before question time today and it is more than a day and a half after publication of these matters. I am certain, if it has occurred to me, it may have happened with respect to a large number of other answers that are in the Hansard. I wonder whether you would follow that up and report to the House. 26890SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow the matter up.2689015:24:0026890Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Mr Speaker, on 6 February I asked question No. 2303 to the Prime Minister and question Nos 2305, 2307, 2308, 2309, 2310, 2314, 2316 and 2318 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services in relation to aircraft noise. Further, Mr Speaker, on 26 February I asked question No. 2374 to the Minister for Finance and Administration about the sale of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. On 1 March, I asked question Nos 2414 and 2415 to the Prime Minister; on 6 March I asked question No. 2436 to the Minister for Finance and Administration; on 7 March I asked question No. 2442 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services; and on 8 March I asked question No. 2449 to the Prime Minister about the sale of Kingsford Smith airport and aircraft noise. I am still waiting for answers to those questions and I would be grateful, under standing order 150, if you would write to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and the Minister for Finance and Administration to facilitate an answer to those questions.26890SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter as the standing orders provide.Documents268902689010000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 30 of 2000-2001 entitled Performance audit—The use of audit in compliance management of individual taxpayers—Australian Taxation Office.Ordered that the report be printed.Documents2689026890Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FISHERIES AND FORESTRY, AUSTRALIA—Annual Report—June 2000—Regional Forest Agreement for the South-West Forest Region of Western Australia (23 March 2001/23 March 2001)DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND AGED CARE—Report on Private Health Insurance Premium Changes—Quarter commencing 1 January 2001—subsection 78 (8)-(11) of the National Health Act 1953 (17 April 2001/18 April 2001).Government Response to The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services—Report of the Inquiry into Infrastructure and the Development of Australia's Regional Areas—`Time Running Out: Shaping Australia's Future'Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Committees268902689010000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received advice from the Government Whip nominating members to be members of certain committees.Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That: (1) Mr Charles be appointed a member of the Committee of Members' Interests; (2) Mr Baird be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority; and (3) Mrs Elson be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and that, in her place, Mr Haase be appointed a member of the committee. Matters of Public Importance268912689110000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hotham proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The government's continuing failure through the Budget to provide a vision for Australia's future and compensate for the full cost of the GST.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—15:29:0026891Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Last night's budget short-changes Australians. It contains no vision for this country. It takes with one hand what it gives with the other. It demonstrates the true impact the GST has had on the Australian economy and on ordinary Australians. To the extent to which it contains initiatives, it copies them from Labor, and it puts the sale of Telstra firmly on the government's agenda. This is a government that claims the impossible magic pudding out of this budget. It claims to tax less, it claims to spend more, but also to produce the higher surplus. We have heard this government run around saying that which Labor is proposing does not add up, yet the government wants you to believe that with last night's budget it can make it add up. I will tell you essentially how it has done that. Rather than taxing less, this budget taxes more, and two fundamental areas in which it taxes more are personal income taxation—I will come to the detail of that in a minute—and fuel tax. Remember when we were saying that they should give relief to Australian motorists because there was a windfall from fuel taxes. The government said there was no windfall. Last night's budget papers demonstrate there was such a windfall, and that is why the promise that we forced it to honour in relation to the GST and its impact on petrol prices did not hurt the budget to the extent which it is asserting. This was just another one of its little tricks. This was just another demonstration on its part that it would say anything to try to get over the problem and would act only when it was dragged kicking and screaming into it.The equation of last night taxes Australians more. The second thing that the budget does is to put the spending initiatives off into the never-never, and we see so many examples of that, whether you look at the welfare package or at the training package. Look at the innovation package, this great document of last year that was heralded in terms of innovation and research and development—spending initiatives pushed back into the second and third year—and they want you to believe they have a vision for this nation! How can we actually drive ourselves forward, how can we become competitive, more productive and more innovative, if the very drivers of that innovation, that production and that competitiveness are taken away?We also know in terms of the welfare package that they propose to spend $1.7 billion over four years and that they are going to get savings, according to this budget, of close to $1 billion, but they do not specify from where; they do not specify the extent of the savings. The first commitment in expenditure in this area is very small indeed in the first year. We also know, in constructing this magic pudding, that it is a budget that delves into the hollow logs: the Telstra dividend, which will disappear when they sell Telstra; the Reserve Bank dividend, which comes off the level of a dollar that the government say does not represent the fundamentals of the economy; and, of course, asset sales. The truth of the matter is that there would not be a surplus next year were it not for asset sales, it would be in deficit; so I think people need to look behind and analyse the true construction of this budget when they are making their assessments of it.Among the issues that I want to touch on today is the notion that what the government gives with one hand it takes with the other. Nowhere is that better demonstrated than in relation to personal income taxation, because this budget collects more in personal income tax than last year's budget; that is, before the tax cuts. We said when the budget was brought down last year that the tax cuts were an illusion, that the tax cuts would disappear but that the GST would remain forever. We said last year that the tax cuts would disappear, and Peter Costello's own budget confirms that very point. I refer to this graph that was circulated by us last night to talk about Mr Costello's version of Australians paying less income tax. This demonstrates that within one year the tax cuts have disappeared and that personal income tax—by his future budgets, by future revenue to this government—will continue to rise. That is why the Prime Minister was having so much difficulty on Neil Mitchell's program this morning when Neil Mitchell put to him that his income tax cuts were a fraud. They have been a fraud on the Australian public because they were promised to people as more than adequate compensation for the cost of the GST. The government told us that everyone bar tax cheats would be better off under the GST. But no-one believes they are better off under the GST, because what the GST did was to force up prices and the compensation that was put in place was inadequate. No better is that point demonstrated than in the case of older Australians. The problem with a GST is that it is a regressive tax; it falls heaviest on those with the lowest incomes, people who in terms of living their lifestyle out dis-save—CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—What?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—They dis-save.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Surely you're not going to keep a regressive tax.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—We have the prattler finally turning up for an MPI—the first MPI that he has turned up for in two years—to defend his economic record, and we have got him in.CT4Costello, Peter, MP10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Treasurer!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Welcome and hold your peace; you have 15 minutes at the end so you can put your points. Older Australians dis-save. That means that people who have to draw on their savings are actually paying a tax when they spend those savings. That is why older Australians have been particularly hard hit. This government knows it and that is why this budget has entered into the realm of roll-back for those people.What does roll-back mean when it comes to ordinary Australians? It means making the GST fairer, and that can be achieved in one of two ways. It can be achieved through compensation or it can be achieved through exemption. What we saw in last night's budget was an acknowledgment of the mea culpa by this government that they had got it wrong for ordinary Australians and they would have to compensate them. But how have they chosen to compensate? They have chosen to compensate people on pension and part-pension with a $300 bonus—$300 when they were promised $1,000. Not once but many times during the election campaign the Prime Minister promised all Australians would get $1,000—and now he expects them to be grateful for $300.And the Treasurer: we quoted today what he said last night when announcing it. He said that it is good for the economy, that the budget this financial year can afford it and that they deserve it. We agree with him on that score and, as we heard from the cheers from the other side, clearly they do too. But this year, when the budget is in surplus to $2.3 billion—a much bigger surplus than the markets expected—why is it that the government could not reach that little bit deeper and do something for ordinary Australians struggling under the weight of this GST? The figure that we are talking about is not something that we have plucked out of the air; it is a figure that the government went to the electorate with. It is a figure that they swore hand on heart to all Australians that they would get when the GST came in. So we do not oppose the $300, and last night we indicated unequivocally that we would support it. But the question we want to ask is: why won't you honour your promise in full? Why won't you give them the full $1,000 that was promised to them? The budget this financial year can afford it. That is where the window of opportunity is—this year—and that is when it should be paid. For the government to go around patting themselves on the back and saying, `We've done something for ordinary Australians,' not only is an acknowledgment that they got it wrong but also reminds us that they still will not honour their promises in full. Why should people have any faith in the government about initiatives that they propose now to save their political hide? This is a government that will do and say anything simply to get re-elected, but you cannot believe them. The $1,000 pensioner rebate is but one example. There is the petrol tax: they were forced into a backflip by the campaign that the Australian Labor Party ran. There is the beer excise— CT4Costello, Peter, MPDT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—They are laughing about this. The Treasurer has got the full chortle now. He must have gone to that makeover guy pretty often—it got rid of the smirk. We are into chortle mode now, are we, Treasurer? Well, you can chortle as much as you like—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will address his remarks through the chair.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The Treasurer knows that nothing that they have said of this GST has been borne out. It has not been good for the economy. It has not been good for pensioners. It has not been good for families. It has not been good for the future direction of this economy.I also make this point: to the extent to which there are initiatives in the budget last night, they were all stolen from the Labor Party. Let us go through some of them. The initiative on the enrolment benchmark adjustment—Labor's policy. The learning gateway—Labor's policy. Medicare after hours—Labor's policy. Medicare online—Labor's policy. The petrol backdown—Labor's policy. The BAS backdown—Labor's policy. The beer backdown—Labor's policy. The liquid assets test for over-55s that we heard the Treasurer talk about—that was a Labor policy that you abolished when you first came in, in your very first budget. The training for Work for the Dole—who introduced that? Labor. Who knocked it off? The Liberal Party. And the Working Credit initiative—this was the transition bank that they knocked off when it was Labor's policy. They have reintroduced it. And Training Credit for the unemployed? We have argued consistently that the mutual obligation principle has to contain the training element. All of these are Labor's policies.Last night in one of the interviews he was doing I heard the Treasurer—I think the line was this—say, `If you believe in these policies, stick with the author.' I had heard that phrase before, because it came from the former Treasurer, P.J. Keating. We always said that this guy was the Kmart Keating. He is pinching his lines; he cannot help himself. Not only has he pinched his lines but he has pinched our policies. In putting his budget together, the only initiatives that make sense, the only ones that stack up, are those which Labor has proposed and consistently campaigned for. So I say to the ordinary people around the country that, if they really want commitment on these policies, they should put the real authors into office. We have stood for these things time and time again. We have introduced them before. We have fought to retain them. This is a government that will only do it at the last minute, when it is dragged kicking and screaming and when it has to save its political hide.We will hear the Treasurer when he gets up later trying to say that Labor have no policies. I say to him: if we did not have policies, brother, you would not have had a budget last night. The basis of your budget is our policies. He will say, `You have no policies; if you did have policies, why haven't you costed them?' I say to him: can he guarantee that the figures in last night's budget will still be there in six months time? If he cannot, then he should not be calling for us to be announcing policy details before the election. He himself was asked last night on Channel 10, `Is this the final word in terms of government policy prior to the next election? Will you be sticking to the $1.5 billion surplus?' The Treasurer's answer, full of confidence: `You'll have to wait for the campaign.' So no more hypocrisy from you, my friend. When you try to say to us, `Give us the details,' we say to you, `Show us the integrity in this budget and demonstrate that the figures stack up; and when we are confident you will see the dollar details from us.' (Time expired)15:44:0026894Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Normally when a shadow Treasurer gets up to reply to a budget, if he were critical of the government's tax rates he would set out what they should be. If he were critical of expenditure measures in the health area, he would say which measures he would cut, how much he would cut them by and where he would reinvest. If he thought it was wrong to be investing in AQIS, he would say why; he would say where the money should be redirected. If he thought that our indirect tax system was wrong, he would say whether he would abolish it. He would say which matters would be reintroduced with wholesale sales tax. He would name the way in which he would fund it, and then he would go on to say that the other taxes which he demanded should be increased.I must say that is probably the worst reply to a budget that I have heard in the 10 years I have been in this parliament. Not only did it have no detail but also it had no passion and it had no fire. It started off with this principle. The argument started off by saying `This was a budget of no vision' and it finished by saying `and you copied the Labor Party policy'. The opening of the speech was, `Where was the vision?' and the closing was `and you copied Labor'. Normally, when you run an argument you think to yourself where you actually disagree with something, and if you disagree with something on the grounds that it has no vision you make the point that it does not agree with any of your policies. You do not finish up by saying that it agrees with all of them.Or if you say it is a budget which follows your policy you begin by saying what a wonderful visionary budget it is and, `I will tell you why it is a visionary budget: it follows my policy.' But you do not begin by saying, `This has no vision and, what's more, it copies me.' That is a sort of Labor Party thing. If I had one regret after hearing that speech, it is that we did not increase funding for the trade union training school. If we had funded the trade union training school, we might have had a coherent argument and, perhaps even more so, we could have got a coherent answer to the budget which the government laid down.It was pretty obvious during question time that not only was the Labor Party flummoxed in its response to the budget but it obviously did not understand it. Its major attack was going to be on the basis that an extension of the self-funded retirees' tax-free threshold to the aged persons rebate was somehow going to advantage people on very high incomes. But it was a fundamental misconception of the way in which a rebate operates. A rebate phases out. The rebate that gives the increase in the self-funded retirees' tax-free threshold phases out on an income test basis and, as the Prime Minister was able to demonstrate, is not available to somebody on $80,000. At that point the question time pact collapsed and we went on to a whole different attack on the budget.I raise that point not to say that we expect people to understand all of the detail of these things but to say that we do expect the Labor Party to actually do some work. This is one of the laziest oppositions that this country has ever seen. Last night we announced an increase in the self-funded retirees' tax-free threshold, done by way of the aged persons rebate. If the Labor Party were generally genuinely interested in policy, the first thing it would have done is understand it and, once it had come to an understanding of it, say either `We agree with it' or `We do not agree with it.' But it never made that first step. The opposition is not prepared to do any work. What is more, it is not prepared to show any passion or any commitment.As I said in question time today, when the self-funded retirees were left at the end of a Labor government in 1996, do you know what their tax-free threshold was? It was $5,400. The independent retirees asked, `Why does a self-funded retiree with an income of, say, $6,000 or $7,000 pay tax and a pensioner with a pension of $7,000 pay no tax?' What was the logic behind that? Why was that the case? Or, to use better figures, why was a self-funded retiree with $12,000 income paying tax and a pensioner with the pension and, say, $1,000 or $2,000 of extra income not paying tax? Why was that the case? Why did the Labor Party believe that, as you walked down the same street, living next door to each other there could be two retired people—one receiving a benefit from the government; one who had saved all of their lives and was living off their savings—who were on the same income and one paid tax and not the other? The truth of the matter was it was ideology. The Australian Labor Party resented people who had saved and were living off their savings. XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPCT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—It is true. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Australian Labor Party is still, by its constitution—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPCT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—and you would know, because you have joined it—committed to the democratic socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. That is what it exists for.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—That doesn't mean that you resent.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—The member for Dickson says that does not mean anything.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—That you resent.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—It is the objective of the Australian Labor Party. It is committed to the democratic socialisation—correct me if I am wrong—of the means of production, distribution and exchange. If it is no longer the commitment of the Australian Labor Party, they could follow in the footsteps of Tony Blair and they could amend it. But you will not have any of the old ACTU presidents who now run the Labor Party saying that they should give away the socialisation objective. The Labor Party, I think, resented the self-funded retirees. They resented them, and they said to the self-funded retiree: on the same income you pay tax, you get no pension, you get no pensioner concession; you pay tax and the pensioner has a better deal.I do not think, by the way, the pensioners demanded that. I think the pensioners understood about two people living in the same street—one living off their savings; one living off the pension—living on the same amount of money, and I do not think the pensioners thought that the self-funded retirees should be denied the same tax treatment. One of the first things we as a government did was put the self-funded retiree and pensioner on the same footing. We said, `You are no longer going to be penalised if you save for your own retirement.' That was a statement of principle.And what is wrong with saving for your retirement? The government needs more people to save for their retirements, because every person that saves for their own retirement is one fewer person on the pension. That is a net saving to government. So why would a government discourage them—apart from this ingrained socialist belief that a person who relied on their own savings did not deserve the same tax treatment? It is a matter of justice. It is a matter of fairness. It is a matter of independence. It is a matter of rewarding savings. It is a matter of thrift. It is a matter of tax justice. We dealt with it in 1996, and last night we lifted the thresholds—not just for the self-funded retiree but for the pensioner too. We have always believed they should get the same treatment.So, if you happen to be an age pensioner with additional income, you can take the value of the $20,000 tax-free threshold as well. That is equal treatment and more generous, better treatment, and it is an improvement in relation to the budget. To this day, I still do not know whether the Labor Party support that measure. Have we heard from them? It is 24 hours later. Does the Australian Labor Party support the measure to increase the tax-free threshold for aged persons, for the pensioner with additional income and for the self-funded retiree, to $20,000? I think the member for Dickson is getting up next, and I ask her to announce in her speech whether or not it is now Australian Labor Party policy to support that. It used not to be. The policy used to be to penalise self-funded retirees and to give them a tax-free threshold of $5,400, and to give the pensioner a tax-free threshold of about $11,100. What I want to know, when she gets up to speak, is, number one, whether they support the principle of equality, although they never practised it; and, number two, whether they support the principle of lifting that tax-free threshold to $20,000. Now that would be a budget reply. They could come in and they could say, `We support the government, we will vote for it,' or they could come in and they could say, `We believe that self-funded retirees should be put back at prejudice,' or they could come in and they could say, `We support the principle of equality, but we believe it should be at a lesser amount, like $15,000 or $16,000.' But to come in and to state a position and to argue for it and to say why they believed the policy was better would be a budget reply. If they thought that the tax system was bad, it would be a budget reply to come in and to say how they were going to amend it.I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition realised the gaffe he made when he said, `We are against the GST because it is regressive.' That was the statement he made. Let me ask some questions. Was a wholesale sales tax regressive? Yes. Was the Labor Party opposed to it? No. The Labor Party was in favour of regressive wholesale sales tax. Was the financial institutions duty regressive? Yes. Was the Labor Party in favour of it? Yes. The Labor Party used not to be against regressive taxes, but it now is. It was in favour of them when it was in office, but now that it is in opposition it is against them. Supposing the GST were regressive, why would the Labor Party not abolish it? If they are against it because it is regressive, why will they not abolish it? If they are against regressive taxes, you would think that they would want to abolish them. That really is an unstoppable point. We know and the Labor Party know that in fact they have used tax reform to try to milk out every opportunistic position, to try to get every cheap little vote they can. Their secret wish right down here is: `If only we can get elected and take advantage of it.' There is nothing that Kim Beazley and Mr Crean require more than to be able to take the benefit of our tax reforms. This is like a group of people who are led screaming and kicking all the way to something that they desperately want to take advantage of. Earlier today, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was running around saying, `I can't lay down a policy, I can't cost a policy. I don't know whether or not we can fund the abolition of the GST or whether or not we can abolish a part of the GST.' Let me make this point, because I think it is an important point for the parliament: the Labor Party can abolish the GST completely, with no cost. All they have to do is announce the policy. You can completely reverse everything that happened on 1 July last year. You can abolish the GST, and you can do it at no cost. The way you do it at no cost is you put the income tax rate up for average workers to 43 per cent, you take family allowance away from families, you put company tax back up to 36 per cent, you double capital gains tax, you reintroduce stamp duties on shares, you reintroduce financial institutions duty and you reintroduce wholesale sales tax. It is very easy to do, and it does not cost a dollar. If you really are against regressive taxes, you abolish the GST, you increase income tax, capital gains tax and company tax and you reintroduce financial institutions duty, stamp duty on shares and the wholesale sales tax. But the fact of the matter is that nobody in their right mind would think that a wholesale sales tax and a higher income tax and a higher company tax and a higher capital gains tax and a financial institutions duty and a stamp duty on shares and a wholesale sales tax would be preferable to a GST. Nobody in their right mind would think that, including the Labor Party. Nobody in their right mind would come to that position. And their position, of course, stands naked and exposed. Their position has been this: `We, the Labor Party, will milk every opportunistic, cheap position on a reform which in the end we, the Labor Party, knew was necessary for Australia and want to keep.' That is the bottom line, and their dearest wish is to get into office and take advantage of it. In the debate that has gone on in Australia in the last couple of years, the Labor Party has had no policy, no ideas and no leadership. The shadow Treasurer is a man who accuses us—and it really is a foul accusation, and I repudiate it—of being like him, of taking his policies. It will be a long day before we do that, because Australia would be much poorer for it. (Time expired)15:59:0026897Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—I want to begin by saying that we know that the Treasurer was wandering around last night glorying in the sound of his own voice, but one might have thought that he would have listened to our response, because after he finished his budget speech, the Labor Party immediately and unequivocally said we would support the initiative the Treasurer has just asked me about. We simply said that we would question why the government had not given the extra $700, and the bills are now before the House, and we are debating them.We have been told a lot, and we were told last night about how this budget would be brimful of a vision for Australia's future. But I think it would be fair to say that in many areas it is not a vision at all. In fact, in my area in particular, it is a bit of a mirage for the moment. The government cannot have it both ways. Either there is an urgency about the unemployment situation in Australia today or there is not. The budget papers themselves forecast unemployment to rise above seven per cent, and place the unemployment rate for the June quarter 2002 at seven per cent. We know, from the government's own evaluation of the Job Network, that they expect its performance to suffer because it is not expected to perform well in a weak labour market. Everyone in this country knows that we do have a weakening labour market right now. The government admits to it in these budget papers. In fact, we have had a weakening labour market dating almost precisely from the time the GST was introduced last year. Since the GST was introduced, we have seen a rise in the unemployment rate of 0.7 percentage points and we have seen an increase in the number of unemployed by 79,400—and the GST was going to be good for jobs. We have seen a halving in the rate of jobs growth and we have seen a fall in the number of full-time jobs of 51,700. These are fantastic economic management credentials, aren't they?We are a long way from Treasurer Costello's boast—remember it?—late last year when he said, with a smile, that we would have an unemployment rate with a five in front of it. Well, the GST is about to put a seven in front of it. So there quite clearly is an urgency in tackling the unemployment problem. Unfortunately, the urgency of policy in this area has very much taken second place to the government's need to pile up some money for some more election pork-barrelling. As I said earlier, the unemployment rate is forecast to rise. But what so many commentators have not extracted from their analysis of the budget so far is that most of the employment programs announced last night, and trumpeted as part of a wider welfare reform, scarcely spend a dollar before June next year, and most of them do not start until September next year. It is called `Helping people to move forward ... but after you wait another 16 months till we get around to it.'We could be a bit suspicious here because, if you take time to consider it, if the coalition government were to win the next election, all these policies would have to run the gauntlet of another of their budgets, and who knows what other strings would be attached or for how much longer these policies would be put off. Remember what happened in the post-election budget in 1996? They cut $1.8 billion from labour market programs and $240 million from TAFE.The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred very accurately to the way in which some of our larger policy items have been stolen, have been copied. I am glad the Minister for Employment Services is sitting across the table from me at the moment, because not only at the macro level have they copied heaps of policies but they have taken advantage of a lot of the policy work that I have been developing on the Job Network. After all that abuse when they said, `You couldn't possibly have training; what a shocking thing to suggest,' guess what we have got? Training for Work for the Dole. It gets a big red tick. We have got better referrals under the Job Network—another Labor idea. We have got more tailored Jobsearch training. We have increased intensive assistance, improved sequencing of employment assistance, more staff for Centrelink to do a better job with referrals, tailored case management for mature age unemployed and, importantly, better company management of retrenchment. That is not a bad scoresheet, is it, even if it is at the micro level. The really good thing about it is that we will not have to do it when we get there because this part of the work will already be done. I also sound just a little note of concern because there is another example of giving with one hand and taking away with the other in this area. Hidden away in the figures yesterday was an offsetting saving which takes the cost of the welfare package from $1.7 billion all the way down to just under $800 million. There are $924 million of savings in this welfare package and there is only one sentence of explanation. Guess what it says? It claims that these savings will be realised by people moving from welfare into work. We have heard this before. Last year the budget included $250 million savings attached to the preparing for work agreements measure. This was meant to do the same thing. How was this made up? This was not made up by moving from welfare to work; this was made up by people being breached. In fact, Minister Abbott has presided over a 250 per cent increase in breaches in the last three years.We know a lot about what this government's vision is about. It is about one-sided mutual obligation. It is about making, at a time of rising unemployment, the unemployed wait for another 16 months for an improvement in crucial services. Yet Minister Abbott proclaimed this Monday in the Australian that the budget was based on the great ethical precept that `we are all our brother's keeper'. He went on to say that this budget wanted to tackle the moral deficit as well as the budget deficit. That is not to mention the skills deficit that has been created by this government over the past five years in their wilful resistance to the inclusion of any meaningful accredited training in any of their Job Network and Work for the Dole programs. So this government fails both on the moral deficit account and on `being our brothers' and our sisters' keepers' account.The Treasurer said, `What do we believe in?' Let us start with saying this: this government's employment and social vision is all about competitive individualism, the pragmatic focus on individuals who may or may not choose to contribute and give something back to the communities who have fostered them. In the Labor Party, we believe in building communities as the core of employment and social policy, and that includes investment in public institutions such as schools and hospitals—something conspicuously absent from last night's budget. In Labor, that means that we ensure that businesses take seriously their social responsibilities to their workforces. It means investing in community solutions to social problems, including unemployment. That is why we have taken seriously our commitment to provide training to improve a job seeker's employability.The Treasurer claimed that this is a budget looking to the future. That is a very glib statement. It ignores the fact that Australia's unemployment is rising now. It will have future consequences, but the unemployed need meaningful assistance now—not in November 2002, four months after the scheme is actually introduced and the first Work for the Dole participants become eligible for their $500 to $800 worth of training. This document may be helping people to move forward, but after 16 months it is just a bit too tricky.16:09:0026898Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—We have listened today to two opposition speakers attempt to detail a case against the government. They have failed miserably. In fact, I have been listening over past weeks to people like the shadow Treasurer and others in the opposition talking about vision. They bandy about this word `vision' willy-nilly. I would like to provide the shadow Treasurer and some of his colleagues with some of that detail which they have failed to produce in this House today. Firstly, I want to detail what can only be described aptly as a lack of vision—that is, a lack of vision by the opposition.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It's your budget!JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEY—I can provide the detail for the shadow Treasurer, if he would care to stay and listen. When this coalition took government, we inherited $80 billion worth of debt. For some time, the opposition presided over interest rates of 22 per cent and an unemployment rate of 11.2 per cent. They neglected regional and rural areas of this country to a disgraceful degree. They also neglected the environment, although once again they kept using words like `vision', but it was all rhetoric. There are so many areas in this country which they allowed to run down. I could go through portfolio by portfolio, some of which I will mention. When we took over government, in the aged care area we were thousands—I repeat, thousands—of beds short, especially in rural areas. Our self-funded retirees, as the Treasurer has itemised in the House today, were not regarded in a way that said, `We appreciate the effort you have made. We believe you should be rewarded for your effort. You have been providing for your own retirement.' No thought whatsoever was given to their needs.In fact, in 1996 when we won government, this legacy of neglect was what those who sit on the opposition benches refer to as a vision. We have to get some sense into this debate. We have to draw a very clear distinction between what is rhetoric on the part of the opposition and what is the substance on the part of the government. One would think, if the opposition were really serious about looking towards establishing a vision for this country, that they would at least have focused on the young people of this nation and would at least have said: what are the opportunities that young people need to become the leaders of our country tomorrow? What about the communities in which many of these young people live?Sadly, in all of the years they have spent in opposition since they lost government, they still have not come up with a blueprint which in any way, shape or form defines how our young people could move forward and look to a secure future in this country—anything that would come remotely close to being described as a vision for this country. In our rural areas, what did they do? They allowed them to run down and they neglected every aspect of the communities and removed expertise. They allowed the roads to run down. They did very little about telecommunications. They did precious little to encourage employers to encourage young people into the work force. They allowed every aspect of our rural and regional communities to run down.Since 1996, it has been this government that has had a very firm vision of what Australia is about and where Australia is heading. We know that the future of our country rests with our young people. It is for this reason that we have put hundreds of millions of dollars into programs to provide young people, firstly while at school, with programs like the Jobs Pathways program. Blind Freddy knows that it is very difficult for some students to make the transition from school to work. Surely those on the opposition benches would have realised that that should have been a basic tenet of looking towards a visionary Australia, but no—it was completely and utterly ignored.If we look at the Work for the Dole program, we know from studies like the Morgan and Banks one that at least 58 per cent of young people who become part of that program find it relatively easy to get employment. In fact, at least 58 per cent of those who participate in Work for the Dole programs become employed citizens. What do the opposition have to say about this? They canned Work for the Dole and they canned programs like Green Corps, a wonderful voluntary program where young people can become part of a team, contribute to communities through environmental projects and pick up numerous skills themselves.None of this was even attempted by the opposition. They have done nothing but bag these programs. Yet they have had the audacity to come into this place and criticise this government, especially the day after it brought down probably the best budget released in this place for years—a budget that is best described in terms of its social bonus, a budget that has placed an emphasis on providing education and skills for young people and a budget that is providing funding for our scientific communities. Once again, looking at these areas which are going to stand us in good stead for the future, these programs are going to take Australia forward in the 21st century. This crowd opposite have no understanding of what the word `vision' even means—they have no understanding of it whatsoever. The shadow Treasurer—I found it quite interesting—referred to things like The Magic Pudding. I think possibly he is retreating to his early childhood—that seems to be where he is getting his ideas from.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—He never left it.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEY—He never left it, the Chief Government Whip tells me, and perhaps that is true.Another area where the opposition sadly neglected this country was in rural and regional health. It has always been very difficult to get doctors into our small rural towns and it has been very difficult to provide access to acute emergency medical services. People living in rural and regional Australia had to wait years for this government to come into power to do something about this. What has been announced in this current budget is actually building on what has been established since 1996. Added to this are some very practical measures to deal with a whole range of issues, including access for young people to nursing training and added incentives for GPs in rural areas to deal with chronic illness. But there is probably nowhere else, in terms of this budget, where the opposition stands more condemned for its lack of understanding than the area of telecommunications. Surely a country with a vision, a country that is moving forward, has to have all members of its communities being able to access the very latest in telecommunications. One of the few acts by those on the opposition benches in the area of telecommunications was to cut out the analog mobile telephone system for people living in rural areas—a disaster. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion is concluded.Committees269002690026900Message received from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate:That the following matters be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities for inquiry and report by 18 May 2001:The provisions of:(1) the Corporations (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2001 (NSW); and (2) the Corporations Bill 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Bill 2001.Bills26900R1250Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate.Bills26900R1249Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate.Bills26900S28726900Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills26900R1315BillsR1312Bills26901R1314BillsR131326901Debate resumed.16:22:0026901Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Last night's budget and today's question time demonstrate in the clearest possible terms that this government will say anything and do anything to save its political bacon. It also demonstrates that what the Prime Minister and the Treasurer give with one hand they take back with the other. Nowhere was that more starkly demonstrated than in the figures provided in the budget last night on income tax which show that the tax cuts, which were much lauded, provided last year have already vanished—been gobbled up by the rising prices caused by the GST and gobbled up by bigger income tax receipts just one year later.The reason that the government will say and do anything to save its political bacon is clearly demonstrated by this fact: tens of thousands of retirees, who today believe that they will get the benefits announced in the budget last night, will in fact get nothing. My colleague the member for Lilley has already demonstrated that tens of thousands of retirees will in fact get nothing, yet the media today talks about the golden oldies and how all these retirees are going to benefit. But they are being tricked again. This government is being tricky again. These tricky leopards never change their spots. It is pretty clear that they have a very bad track record of being tricky, saying anything and doing anything to get elected, because they did that before the last election, again misleading older Australians with statements such as these from the Prime Minister:You get a $1,000 savings bonus for all people over the age of 60.He said that on Perth radio on 25 August in 1998. He also said, on Brisbane radio on 18 August 1998:... for every person 60 and over there will be a savings bonus—a one-off tax free payment of $1,000 in relation to any investment income that you might have ...I repeat: he said `for every person 60 and over.' We know that thousands and thousands of people 60 and over missed out altogether; many got $1 and certainly very few got the full $1,000 that the Prime Minister told people that they would be getting. Similarly, with the four per cent pension rise—the much lauded four per cent pension rise—they did not say that they were going to claw two per cent of that back. In the document Tax reform: not a new tax, a new tax system of 23 August 1998, it says that `social security and veterans pensions will be boosted by 4 per cent'. Similar statements were made by the Prime Minister. What the government is really saying is that you need to read the fine print: `You must read the fine print because that's a qualification on what we say. And if you don't read the fine print, it's a fair cop because we've tricked you.'The fact is that the government hopes that retirees—who in fact will get nothing out of the announcements last night—will not realise this, that they will not read the fine print until after the election, at which point they hope to be able to say, `Ha, ha, we tricked you. We won the election. You should have read the fine print.'It is a fact, though the Prime Minister has sought not to answer this particular part of the question, that retiring politicians, as a result of the budget announcements of last night, will get a pensioner card and they will get a $17.20 a quarter telephone allowance. Why should retiring government members be able to get a pensioner card and a phone allowance? This is the Prime Minister's idea of fairness. This is his idea of need—that retiring government members should be able to get these benefits, yet age pensioners are supposed to be thankful that they will get $300 of the $1,000 that the Prime Minister promised them before the last election. Without qualification, he said, `Every Australian will get $1,000.' Now these pensioners are supposed to say, `Oh well, that's okay. You promised $1,000. We're very grateful that we're going to get $300, and now we're going to vote for you.' It is yet another in a litany of broken promises on the part of this government. How can that possibly be fair, that a retiring politician gets a pensioner card and a phone allowance, yet pensioners will only get $300 of the $1,000 that they were promised? This is a government that is very unfair indeed. It has acquiesced to tax avoidance at the big end of town. Remember when the government said, `Look, we're going to have another look at the entity taxation regime, at family trusts. We're going to have another look at that because we might have got the exposure draft a little bit wrong, but what we're going to do, absolutely certainly, is make sure that there's no rorting there, make sure that there's no tax avoidance.' Well, on page 39 of Budget Measures 2001-02—that is, Budget Paper No. 2—they have actually costed what they are doing in relation to family trusts, the entity regime. It is a cost of $1,125 million over four years. That is the extent of the abandonment of any pretence at doing anything about tax avoidance through the use of trusts. It was all pretty well anticipated by Access Economics in their Budget Monitor, released just the other day. In that document, Access Economics says:In 2001-02, the expected addition to revenue from ATO challenges to aggressive tax planning schemes is now threatened by rapid back-peddling (with a high concentration of individuals benefiting from these schemes lucky enough to live in marginal electorates).What they are saying and what is the truth is that this government is for the big end of town. It is to make the rich get richer. The poor are getting squeezed and the middle are getting squeezed as a result of these policies, yet here is the government saying, `Oh, but this time you must believe us. We are really looking after older Australians.' But older Australians will realise that many of them, if not most, will miss out on these benefits that were announced last night, and they are going to be very angry over the next few days when they come to realise that they will miss out. This is a government that will say anything and do anything to get re-elected. It is a government that gives with one hand and takes with the other. It is a government that has already put into the budget the sale of Telstra. Make no mistake—this government is going to sell Telstra. That is an unqualified, unconditional commitment in the budget because it is in the budget—the figures are there.It is about time this tricky government came clean. It is about time they showed a bit of fairness. I finish my remarks with relation to the measures contained in the legislation before us today about prisoners of war. Of course we support the measures in relation to Australians who were interned in Japanese prisoner of war camps. But there were many Australian soldiers who were also in prisoner of war camps in Italy and in Germany. My father was one of those. He died in 1978, and so there is no suggestion that there was any entitlement in relation to my father, because he has died. A 60-year commemoration was held just the other day for people who were captured in Crete and taken to POW camps. My father was one of those. Surely, for those people who are still alive, on the basis of fairness you would think that the government would have said that they too are deserving of this payment. But no; yet again they are setting one group against another, just as they do more generally when they say, `All right; we're going to look after you, but we're not going to look after them.' Why set Australian against Australian? Why have this warped sense of equity, where you look after one group and then say to another, `No; you're not entitled to get anything'?As people come to realise the full impact of this budget and the full extent of the trickery in this budget, it will unravel on this government. There is no doubt on earth about that. People will be even angrier at a government that has been described by its own people, by Shane Stone, as mean, tricky and out of touch. This budget demonstrates once and for all that the government has learnt nothing from the Shane Stone memorandum and that it is indeed mean, tricky and out of touch and will say and do anything to save its political bacon. 16:31:0026903Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—What a great day it is today for the Australian community. Today really is the culmination of five years of good government. We have seen in the budget this year the culmination of sound economic management. It is very easy to talk about economic management and not realise what it means; but I am very proud to be part of a government that has worked hard to make the tough decisions, to make the reform decisions that we needed to take to give this country the great future that it deserves and to give it the great future that it was robbed of by the Labor government when they were in office. They left us with a huge debt burden, and we have managed to pay off $60 billion of Labor's $80 billion debt. That might not sound like a great, fancy achievement; but what it does is save Australia $4 billion every year—$4,000 million every year in interest payments. This money, instead of being wasted on interest payments, can now be returned to the Australian community in benefits and services they deserve and are entitled to.I am very pleased that the budget has been able to provide a one-off payment to prisoners of war of the Japanese. This is something that I have lobbied for on behalf of the veterans in my electorate for some time, and it is pleasing that we have been able to provide that money not only to the prisoners of war who survived but also to surviving spouses. In my electorate alone, I understand that I have 28 surviving ex-prisoners of war of the Japanese and some 84 war widows who will be affected by that one-off payment; so it is a very significant thing for the veterans of my community.I am also very pleased that the war widows pension for widows who remarried before 1984 has been restored. This was something that many war widows have made representations about to my electorate office over the past five years and it is something that I believe is long overdue. But, again, it is something that we could only do because we had the money in the budget to be able to provide the services and facilities that we really believe should be given to the people that made this country.Older Australians will benefit from sound economic management. The income tax cuts, by raising the tax-free threshold to $20,000 for singles and $32,612 for couples, were described by opponents as being tricky. I cannot see that it was tricky, because it was backdated to 1 July 2000. At least our tax cuts are delivered, which is more than was done by the Labor Party when they were in government. We have delivered them now, this year, right this instant, so that people can have the benefit of them. We have also increased the threshold for senior Australians with the Medicare levy, from $13,550 to $20,000 with no payment of the Medicare levy until income is above that amount. Of course, the extension of the Commonwealth seniors health card is very important for self-funded retirees; and the limit has now been increased to $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for couples. This is a recognition of the commitment that self-funded retirees have made to this country and of the commitment that they have made to fund their own retirement, and a recognition that many of them—particularly those that were on the lower end of the scale of self-funded retirees and needed medications—were really suffering and being disadvantaged by not having access to the health care card; and it will of course enable them to have discounted pharmaceuticals and access to cheaper medicines.We have increased the range of aged care services, with some $425.9 million for aged care services, which is important in areas such as mine, where we have a higher than average number of retirees who have come to the beautiful Central Coast of New South Wales for their retirement. Another, smaller, amount—it is not a small amount really—is the $1.2 million for a Safe at Home program for personal alarm systems for older Australians. I am very pleased to see that is in the budget, because one of the issues that keeps coming up all the time in my electorate office is law and order and safety. Obviously, law and order in New South Wales is the responsibility of the Carr government; and I am disappointed that they have not put the services and the police numbers that we need in our electorate to provide the quick response times that we need. I know that many older Australians are living in fear. They are frightened, they will not go out at night and, in some cases, they will not even go out in the daytime. I think that is an absolute travesty, and we really need to focus, both the state governments and the federal government, on ensuring that we do attack problems of law and order and lawlessness and ensure that older people particularly can feel safe walking down the street and in their own homes. There was an increase of continued funding for dementia facilities—another $10.8 million for education, support and assessment programs. It is fortunate that, in many ways, our life expectancy through better health care is increasing all the time. It would seem that, as our life expectancy increases, there is a significant increase in dementia. It really is a major problem as people get older, and we need to continue to put a great deal of effort and money into that.Another very notable program in the budget is funding for government schools. I have been angered and disappointed by the political campaign that has been run by some aspects of the Teachers Federation and others from the Labor Party about the amount of funding that goes to government schools. We have continued to increase the amount of government funding that goes to government schools. It is important to recognise that an additional $238 million over four years is continuing to build the coalition's commitment to government schools. Commonwealth funding has grown by almost 42 per cent between 1996 and 2002. It just shows that, by addressing the sound economic fundamentals of the Australian economy, this government has a track record that is enabling us to deliver services and benefits to veterans, to older Australians and to everyone in the Australian community. I heard one of the Labor members who spoke prior to me talk about retirement benefits. I suspect that opposition members may be more concerned about retirement benefits than are some of us on the government side. Although they claim that the government is in trouble, I do not believe it is, because we have a great track record. The Australian community knows that what we are doing is the right thing for the community. The government is providing the money that we need in order to give the Australian community the services that it deserves. If we had not addressed that deficit, we would not have the money that we have now which we can return to the people who have worked hard, who have built this country, who have made this country great and who deserve to be recognised for the contribution they have made, particularly our older Australians and our veterans.16:39:0026904Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Whilst I support the Compensation (Japanese Internment) Bill 2001 and the cognate bills and any action that this mean-spirited, tricky government takes to ameliorate the hurt it has caused Australians, I recognise these measures for what they are—a blatant attempt to buy votes from those Australians that the GST has hurt the most. This is a government in panic. The GST is the tax that taxes every aspect of every Australian's life every day in every way. No measure that is rushed in at the last minute to try to compensate senior Australians for the great hurt this government has caused will turn that around. We might well ask: who does the GST hurt the most? The answer is: those on fixed incomes—seniors, self-funded retirees, pensioners, Australians with families. The government stands condemned for its failure to compensate pensioners and self-funded retirees properly.Whilst there are measures in these bills to compensate pensioners and self-funded retirees, I must express my disappointment that the government has failed to recognise the great hurt it has caused people living in residential and caravan parks. This government has brought in its own GST compensation, its own roll-back—or should I say `rollover'—and in doing that it is attempting to make up for the great hurt it has caused. I was speaking today to a pensioner who lives at Swansea in the Shortland electorate. She said that, since the GST has been introduced, she has paid $1,077 in GST. She bought a new stove, video, airconditioner and TV and now she is up for new carpet. You might say that these are one-off items and that she is unlucky that they have all broken down at this particular time. But she has had a house for 23 years—and probably that is a short period of time for a pensioner. When you have had your appliances for a long period of time, they break, and after a certain period of time your house needs painting, and pensioners have to come up with the money to have these jobs done and that all entails the GST. I see this $300 as blood money. It is the government's attempt to buy off, to compensate, to try to make up for the great hurt it has caused our senior Australians. It is a blatant grab for votes, and it is treating Australians, particularly our senior Australians, with contempt. This government thinks that, by throwing $300 at pensioners—quite a few of whom did not receive the $1,000—all will be forgotten, all will be forgiven, and that they will see the government as being a caring, compassionate government. Not so; the experience that I have had when I have visited pensioner groups does not bear this out. There is great anger towards the government. Pensioners and self-funded retirees really feel that they have been sold out by the government—and no attempt to buy their vote is going to convince them otherwise.We also had the savings bonus debacle. Whilst I am talking about that, I might just refer to an incident where Mr Basil Kane confronted the Prime Minister last week at Erina Fair at Gosford. He asked the Prime Minister three times whether he had promised $1,000 compensation for pensioners and why he had not delivered. After the budget, Mr Kane was asked what he thought of the $300, and his answer was:The $300 is a pittance for what the GST has taken away from pensioners who aren't self-funded.That is what the retired salesman said from his home on Saturday. Obviously Mr Kane has not accepted this $300 as a pay-off for the hurt that the government has caused him.When the savings bonus was promised to Australian pensioners, they believed that the government was going to deliver it to all pensioners. They did not read the fine print. They were not aware that they actually had to have savings worth $1,000 to be eligible for it. I had pensioners in my office literally crying. `Is this what the government thinks of me; am I so contemptible that they've given me $13?' one pensioner said. Another pensioner received $1. Some of the pensioners in the Shortland electorate actually sent the money back to the government. As I say, the pensioners are too smart to be fooled by this government, and $300 of blood money is not going to buy you another term in government. Never has there been a government that has caused so much hurt and hardship to so many people, particularly to those people on fixed incomes, the pensioners and the self-funded retirees. Peter Costello and John Howard are saying that they got it wrong. Okay, we on this side of the House accept that. Everyone can make a mistake. They are saying, `We made a mistake, but we're going to reward you for the mistake we've made by giving you a pittance of $300.' `Trust us,' they say, `we'll look after you; give us another term in government.' That is what this is all about: `Give us another term in government and everything will be all right.'The Howard-Costello government are desperately trying to convince self-funded retirees that they care about them with their GST roll-back package. They are trying to convince this group of Australians—a group that has traditionally supported the government but one that is very angry with the government—that they are going to look after them. I will refer to another piece of correspondence I received in my office in Belmont today. This constituent said:I think there are some things that need explaining—about the government's assistance package for self-funded retirees—Perhaps this could be passed on ... to Canberra.I have included some comments. I shall be pleased to receive some answers.I ask these questions on this constituent's behalf. She looked at the budget statement and thought there was something funny about it. The first thing she said was that it was unclear as to what age a self-funded retiree becomes an older Australian. In question time today we heard the answer: that you have to be eligible for the pension. And what about the low income aged persons rebate, she asks. How old is an aged person? I will digress for a moment to say that I have actually received another letter from another constituent who qualifies for the age pension. But she is on the disability support pension and is most concerned that she will not be paid the $300 because she is not in receipt of the age pension. What is meant by `qualifying' in the term `qualifying self-funded retirees'? I suspect that the devil may be in that word `qualifying'. People are suspicious—once burned, twice shy. Is there any age limit? The budget implies no age limit. But, once again, we need to read the fine print. This constituent whom I mentioned previously is a 56-year-old woman who is a fully self-funded retiree, and she wants to know whether she will qualify. Her husband is a 61-year-old fully self-funded retiree. Will he qualify? Obviously, the answer is going to be no. This is typical for many self-funded retirees who, once again, this tricky, mean-spirited government is seeking to dupe. What is meant by the word `effective' in the phrase `effective tax-free threshold'? And so her letter goes on. Obviously, this legislation poses many questions that the government has failed to answer. My advice to self-funded retirees is to read the fine print—because we always know there is a catch in the fine print. If you think something is not explained properly, I am sure you are right.In conclusion, I would like to endorse the payment of $25,000 to those Australians who were held by the Japanese as prisoners of war, but I must say that the government was dragged kicking and screaming into introducing the legislation. Legislation has already been introduced by the UK, the Dutch and the New Zealand governments, but this government has shown a reluctance to introduce it. This GST compensation, or roll-back, to senior Australians is welcome, even if it is given reluctantly. This mean-spirited government's roll-back should be recognised for what it is—a tricky grab for votes—and all Australians recognise it for what it is.16:51:0026906Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—I am very pleased to speak in support of the Compensation (Japanese Internment) Bill 2001 and related bills. Being a member of parliament, it is always gratifying to feel that you are involved in something that provides assistance to a needy part of your constituency. Certainly these four bills address that, and it is very satisfying to be part of a government that has been able to get to a position where it can provide that additional assistance to a number of groups of people in our communities who thoroughly deserve it.I find the attack from the ALP on these bills quite staggering. I think it has to do with guilt. I think that there is a huge amount of guilt on the Labor side of politics at the moment, because a number of people on the opposition benches in this parliament were part of the previous Labor administration which went through a number of years when inflation ran at a very high level. On average over the 13-year period, inflation ran at over five per cent. It was five per cent year after year after year. We all saw the emotion of slightly higher inflation last year during the transitional phase of the new tax system, but it was still only up around the lower levels of the inflation that occurred during many of the years of the Labor administration. At times, inflation under Labor was running at eight and nine per cent, but it averaged five per cent a year—year after year after year. Some of these people were part of that. Many of them were also part of the administration that went to an election in 1993 and said: `No new taxes at all and we will also give you a tax break. This is how we'll prove that we'll give it to you—we'll actually put it into legislation.' Then, after the 1993 election, not only did they renege on actually implementing it so that the tax breaks did not come but they actually increased taxes substantially, particularly in the wholesale sales tax area where wholesale sales taxes went from 10 per cent to 12 per cent, 20 per cent to 22 per cent and 30 per cent to 32 per cent. The people who were hurt most in the situation of constant high inflation plus this big increase in tax after the 1993 election were people on fixed incomes and low incomes, pensioners and self-funded retirees. How much compensation did Labor give at the time? Not a red cent—not a single cent. They did not even talk about compensation; they did not even debate whether there should be some compensation for that group who were affected. What we are seeing now is this pouring out of guilt from the Labor Party because they know, when they think back to those years, how tough it was for that group of people, coping with those additional taxes and the high inflation where costs were going up constantly, and they gave them absolutely nothing. Having been able to put the economy back into shape over the last few years, we are now able to give those groups a bit of help, and the Labor Party cannot handle it because they are seeing us do something that they would have dearly loved to have done themselves. The reason back in 1993-94 that they did not give any compensation to those groups was that they were broke. Look at the deficits they were running each year—between $10 billion and $17 billion each year, year after year, for five years. So they could not do it. They sold some assets and used that money in the budget to basically buy the groceries, and they were still short of money and had to go out and borrow. They were absolutely broke, so there was no way that they could give compensation to those people.The member for Shortland, who has just spoken, was not part of that administration but she would know full well what occurred. For her to talk with such passion now about $300 being a pittance, if $300 in her terms is a pittance, what was no compensation back in 1993-94? A hell of a lot less than a pittance. Older Australians and self-funded retirees can remember quite clearly what happened then and can see quite clearly what has been happening under this administration: the fact that we have been able to put the economy in a position to be able to reward some of those groups in need. One of those groups is the pensioners, whereby full and part pensioners will receive a $300 tax-free bonus in the coming weeks, if the legislation passes this week. They deserve to have that assistance. They are people that have fixed incomes, who rely upon the pension and who rely upon government assistance. So this will come as great assistance to them.Similarly, with the bill for the self-funded retirees, I do not want to labour the point but I think that we should labour the point that those self-funded retirees back in 1996 when we came into government were paying tax on every dollar above $5,400 that they earned. Many self-funded retirees had similar incomes to pensioners and, purely and simply because they had been responsible and had saved for their retirement, were penalised by having to pay tax. We addressed that immediately we got into government, even though we were faced with a very difficult budget situation because of the debt left behind. But we knew that that having occurred was an absolute injustice, so we addressed that immediately and made sure that those self-funded retirees were not treated badly and that they were treated in a similar fashion to pensioners. We have gone that step further now. In the future, if we are going to have a system that really can afford to look after people in real need, we need to make sure that we are providing plenty of incentive for people to be self-funded. Back in those days in 1996, where was the incentive to be self-funded if you paid tax on every dollar over $5,400? There was a huge incentive in fact to be irresponsible, spend your savings and then go on the pension—because you were better off. There was no incentive at all. If we are going to make sure that we have got plenty in the future for people who really do need assistance, we have to continue to provide an incentive for people to be self-funded. This particular measure does that by increasing the tax-free threshold for a single, retired self-funded person to $20,000 and for a couple to $32,600-odd. There is also the additional assistance to expand the seniors health care card. Once again, that will be of great assistance to those people. The $300 grant to pensioners covers all age pensioners and war pensioners. Similarly, the tax-free threshold applies to all categories of people who are retired beyond retirement age and earning an income up to $20,000 for a single person and $32,600 for a couple. The other bill that I would like to briefly mention is the Compensation (Japanese Internment) Bill 2001. The previous speaker, the member for Shortland, said that she supported the bill, but she asked why the government took so long to bring it in. She was not part of the previous Labor government, but I am sure she knows enough about Labor politics or politics in general to realise that her side of politics were in government for 13 years and they did not seem to be able to get around to this at all.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPOK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—A number of governments did not, as the member for Cunningham says. But the Labor Party were in government for the previous 13 years before the coalition came to government in 1996 and they did not talk about this and they did not do anything about it, so it is a bit trite for her to stand up in here and say, `Why did you take so long?' when her side of politics had 13 years to do something about it and did not. We have now done something about it. We have done so also because we have been responsible managers of the economy over the last five years and we have been able to put our government in a situation where we can look at a number of these sorts of areas. You would always like to give assistance to a whole variety of people, but you have to live within your means. The previous Labor government did not live within their means and therefore could not do the things that we can do now.I will finish on the last point that the member for Shortland went on about, that these are just measures to buy votes. If she wants to look at budgets to buy votes, she should look at the five budgets that the Labor Party brought down in their last five years. Buying votes is when you go out and borrow money to have expenditure—often irresponsible expenditure—all over the place. The budget this year is another one of the few budgets, and in the last couple of years they have been coalition ones, where we have been able to reduce taxes—that means reduce the burden on our community—but still have a surplus. We have been extremely responsible in that sense, so we have been able to put in place these things that are of great assistance to those groups that deserve them and need them.17:02:0026908Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—The 2001 budget provides the government's fifth consecutive cash surplus, the longest run of cash surpluses in almost 30 years. It delivers additional funding for national priority initiatives including measures to provide increased support to older Australians, improve the welfare system and improve the health and living standards of all Australians. A number of the key measures in the budget, which was handed down last night, are being debated today. I am pleased that honourable members on both sides of the House support the package of bills. As part of tax reform, the government delivered a number of benefits to pensioners and self-funded retirees. These included real increases in pensions and allowances, lower income tax rates, lower capital gains tax rates, one-off non-taxable bonuses of up to $3,000 and refunds of excess imputation credits. Last night's budget and these bills build on those measures which the government has already delivered upon.One of the bills being debated today increases the effective tax-free thresholds for senior Australians, including self-funded retirees and people who are of age pension age and receiving a Commonwealth pension. The higher rebates will allow single senior Australians to derive taxable income up to $20,000 without paying tax. This compares to $12,652 in 1999-2000. Those under age pension age will be able to derive taxable income up to $15,970 in 2000-01 without paying tax. This compares to $12,652 in 1999-2000. The bill also amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 to ensure that senior Australians who are entitled to the increased rebates as a result of this bill do not have to pay the Medicare levy where their taxable income is less than $20,000. Australians under age pension age who receive a taxable Commonwealth government pension will not have to pay the Medicare levy where their income is below $15,970. The amendments made by these bills apply to the 2000-01 year of income, which means that these Australians will see the benefits of these measures in a lower tax bill or a higher tax refund after they lodge their 2000-01 income tax returns. The Family and Community Services and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Further Assistance for Older Australians) Bill 2001 forms part of a package of measures that further demonstrates the appreciation and acknowledgment of the government and the community for the contribution older Australians have made and continue to make to society. This bill directs special attention to those who, while on low or modest incomes, do not qualify for age pension. Previously, the Howard government extended access to the Commonwealth seniors health card by increasing the income limits under which a person could qualify. This bill goes further by increasing the income limits to $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for couples. The bill also provides for the extension of telephone allowance to holders of Commonwealth seniors health cards. Until now, only pensioners and some beneficiaries could qualify. As part of this legislative package, superannuation assets will be exempt from the social security means test for people between 55 and age pension age. This will encourage people not to give up and consider themselves retired at an early age and will help people preserve their superannuation savings for a better retirement in the long run.In addition, the package provides for a one-off payment to the aged to be paid to those people who, on 22 May this year, have reached age pension age and are receiving a social security pension or benefit. A similar payment will be made to pension age service pensioners, income support supplement recipients and age pensioners receiving their payment from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The one-off payment of $300 will be paid to social security pensioners and beneficiaries by 30 June 2001 and will not be taxable.Turning now to the Compensation (Japanese Internment) Bill 2001, in the 2001-02 federal budget the Howard government has recognised the Australians—whether they be sailor, soldier, airman, nurse or civilian—who endured the dark days of the Second World War as prisoners of Japan. More than half the Australians who lost their lives during the war in the Pacific died as prisoners of war. They were driven into slave labour and forced on death marches, and they suffered in the most horrific conditions imaginable.This legislation will give effect to key elements of the government's commitment to make a one--off cash payment of $25,000 to those Australians who were held captive by Japan during the Second World War and to the widows and widowers who supported their spouses after the war. The payment will be made to eligible recipients who were alive on 1 January 2001, namely, members of the Australian defence forces who were held prisoner of war by Japan between 7 December 1941 and 29 October 1945, civilians who were detained or interned by Japan during the same period and who were domiciled in Australia immediately before their detention and widows or widowers of former POWs or civilians held by Japan. In those cases where an eligible recipient has died since 1 January 2001, the payment will be made to their estates. The one-off payment will be non-taxable. The payment will be exempted from the income and assets test applied to the Veterans' Affairs service pension, income support supplement and any Centrelink income support payments.I believe that in his contribution the honourable member for Cowan queried the matter of deeming, and I want to advise the House that the one-off payment to ex-POWs will not be counted under the income and assets test for people receiving income support payments from Centrelink or Veterans' Affairs. If a person invests the payment, income from the investment will be counted under normal income test rules. For example, if the person invests the money in financial investments, the investment will be subject to the normal income test deeming rules. This is the same treatment as for other types of exempt income and assets in social security and veterans' entitlements legislation. A query was also raised as to why only former prisoners of Japan were included for the purpose of the $25,000 one-off payment. Obviously, it would always be desirable to include as many people as possible, but the conditions that were endured by prisoners of Japan were so horrific that the government believed that a very special case ought to be made for those people who were prisoners of Japan and also their widows or widowers. I am told that 36 per cent of people who were prisoners of war of the Japanese in the Second World War died in captivity. For my part, I had a great-uncle who was a prisoner of the Japanese at that time. That is the reason why this assistance has been given to people who were prisoners of war of the Japanese.The honourable member for Cowan also queried why this took so long. That is a fair question, but we have had governments of both political persuasions in Australia since the Second World War and I suppose this was a case of `better late than never'. It is regrettable that it has taken as long as this, but the Howard government is the government which has finally redressed what is obviously an historic inequity. The honourable members for Lilley and Swan claimed that press reports suggested that benefits to self-funded retirees would be available to people over 55. The government has clearly stated that these measures are available to senior Australians, and these are people who are of age pension age. The government has never suggested that they would be available to people who are 55 years old.The same two honourable members also suggested that the government neglected to say that regulations were recently gazetted on 11 May 2001 to increase the rebates to $15,970. The second reading speech states:Regulations have been gazetted to allow single pensioners who are under age pension age to derive taxable income up to $15,970 in 2000-01 without paying tax. The government has not tried to hide this fact. These measures provide significant benefit. They enable single people over age pension age to earn up to $20,000 without having a tax liability, and they also remove the Medicare levy liability for these people whose income is below $20,000.The package of bills which we are considering in the chamber at the moment has proven to be very popular. It indicates that this government is attuned to what the people of Australia want. We have recognised that as a nation we owe a very special debt to those people who are retired and who are pensioners. They have contributed to make this country the lucky country. They have contributed to the freedom, the stability and the way of life that have made Australia the envy of the world. All government members and the entire community are proud of this package of bills, and I am very pleased to commend them to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.26910Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Bills26910R131226910Consideration resumed from 22 May, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.26910Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Bills26911R131426911Consideration resumed from 22 May, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill and proposed amendments announced.26911Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.17:17:0026911Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—by leave—I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Family and Community Services and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Further Assistance for Older Australians) Bill 2001. I move government amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 10), omit “Schedules 2 and 3”, substitute “Schedule 2”.(2) Clause 2, page 1 (line 12), omit “Schedules 2 and 3 commence”, substitute “Schedule 2 commences”.I understand that the purpose of these amendments is merely to alter the date of commencement of a certain provision.17:18:0026911Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—The opposition has no objection to these amendments. In passing, though, and in reference to some comments that have been made previously in the debate on all of this legislation today, I do not think it should go unremarked that when compensation was mentioned by government members not once did they mention that the compensation in the legislation being debated this afternoon was for the full impact of the GST. I do not think those older Australians that people have been talking about this afternoon will certainly forget that.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.26911Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Bills26911R131326911Consideration resumed from 22 May, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmativeBill read a second time.26911Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Committees26911269112691117:20:0026911Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—On behalf of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the fifth report for 2001 of the committee relating to site filling, stabilisation and construction of infrastructure at the Defence site at Ermington, New South Wales.Ordered that the report be printed.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—by leave—The report I have tabled concerns the proposed site filling, stabilisation and construction of infrastructure for the Defence site at Ermington, Sydney, New South Wales. The proposed works are to take place on the site of a former Royal Australian Navy stores depot on the northern shore of the Parramatta River at Ermington. The site is vacant and surplus to Defence requirements. Defence, therefore, intends to sell the site. The proposed works are intended to optimise the revenue return from the future sale of the site. A range of site preparation works are intended to reduce uncertainties which may have been perceived by prospective purchasers and thereby increase the range of sale options. Once the site preparation works have been completed, it is expected that the site will be used as a residential development. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $31.6 million. The work involves an extensive site filling, stabilisation and construction of infrastructure program, the main elements of which include stripping topsoils and regrading the exposed surface to prevent ponding and enhance the flow of surface water, installing vertical prefabricated band drains from the prepared ground level to varying levels below ground and forming a fill platform above the one-in-100-years flood level. They also include constructing an access lane off Silverwater Road for construction traffic; installation of sewer pipe reticulation; stormwater drainage works; water supply pipe; construction of roads; construction of landscaping and water quality control works; installation of power, gas and communications reticulation; and reconstruction of a seawall near the southern boundary of the site.The estimated cost of $31.6 million covers design, site establishment and environmental controls, excavation, treatment, backfilling and compaction of fill, seawall protection works and management of groundwater. It should be noted that the estimated cost includes a contingency for both the filling and stabilisation costs and infrastructure costs.In all of its reports the committee gives specific attention to environmental and heritage issues. In the case of the Ermington project, the committee was advised by the Department of Defence that the consultants engaged to undertake a flora and fauna assessment of the site of the proposed development had found no endangered species listed under either the Commonwealth's Endangered Species Protection Act or the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act. The assessment also found that the majority of the vegetation on the site consisted of species introduced to the area. With respect to heritage issues, no buildings or structures of heritage importance remained on the site.The committee is strongly of the view that, in projects such as this one at Ermington, it is essential that the Department of Defence involve the wider community in the works process. The committee is very supportive of the community reference group process undertaken prior to the commencement of the works at Ermington. We were also pleased to see the member for Parramatta taking a considerable interest in this particular development within his electoral area and attending the public hearing held there by the committee. We extend the same courtesy to members on the other side.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—You are being provocative!4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—Not at all. It is essential that we go through these processes and make sure that the community understands what is happening and has an opportunity to comment on these developments. The community reference group showed an impressive level of commitment in devising and utilising a program of participation and partnering from the outset. Evidence to the committee from the Residents Committee has provided a snapshot of how a meaningful relationship developed between a proactive, interested community and a landowner—in this case the Department of Defence. The committee is of the opinion that an ongoing community involvement, such as that proposed with respect to the Ermington works, will lend greater legitimacy to an agency's actions and facilitate the implementation of projects. In turn, such consultation should also minimise disturbance to the local community.On the basis of evidence, both public and in camera, presented as part of the inquiry process, the committee concluded that the proposed site works will reduce uncertainties perceived by prospective purchasers and will increase the range of sale options available to the Department of Defence. Additionally, the committee is of the view that the proposed works represent value for money and have the potential to maximise the revenue return to the Commonwealth from the future sale of the site. Further, on the basis of evidence presented to the inquiry, the committee concluded that the proposed works have the potential to provide long-term benefits to the Ermington community and the Parramatta region in general. The committee has therefore recommended that the proposed site filling, stabilisation and construction of infrastructure proceed. In conclusion, I thank the Department of Defence, and in particular Mr Bernard Blackley and Mr Mathew Beggs, for their assistance during the inquiry. I thank the secretariat members who worked to produce the final report. I also thank Ian Ireland, from the Parliamentary Library, who was seconded to the committee's secretariat last year and has assisted the committee with a number of inquiries. We thank him for the valuable advice and assistance that he has provided us in the conduct of this inquiry and the preparation of the report. I commend the report to the House.17:26:0026913Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—by leave—As the honourable member for Pearce indicated, this particular site at Ermington is being prepared for sale by the Department of Defence and was in fact listed last night in the budget as a source of funding that the Department of Defence believes will be necessary as part of its ongoing planning. It should be pointed out that the budget papers indicated that something in excess of $700 million is anticipated from the sale of Defence property over the next couple of years. Indeed, next year, in excess of, I think, $475 million is expected to be realised as part of the proceeds of revenue raising for the budget. The Ermington property will be part of that. My concern about that figure of more than $400 million being realised from the sale next year of Defence land as government assets is that, in my view, it is somewhat ambitious. I think some of the properties, though not specifically this one, have been overvalued and I am not convinced that that money will be realised. I am equally concerned to see that in the budget last night the government has made provision for $16 million additional funding to pay for leasing. What is happening is that the Department of Defence is being called upon to sell much of its property and then to lease back what it needs, and it is finding that it has to pay much more for the leaseback arrangement. If this is good economic management from the Minister for Defence, just as his economic management is seeing us acquire—as the Treasurer indicated last night—four airborne early warning and control aircraft for the price of six, then I would hate to see what good economic management is all about.I suggest that this particular report be looked at very carefully to see what asset sale realisation takes place. I certainly will be, just as I will be scrutinising all the other sites that have been recommended and those that as yet have not been listed. As I said, I think an overly optimistic target has been set by this government for the Department of Defence to realise as part of the asset sale process so that it can be put back into defence—and not all of it will be, of course, because dividends have to be paid under this government. I would hope that those funds can be directed to the pointy end of defence where they are needed, and there is not the tricky and sleight of hand approach that was adopted last night with the capital works program for the Department of Defence where they are underspending by $1 billion. We would like to know a bit more about that. But this particular site is important as part of the asset sales program. I look forward to the realisation taking place and I will be watching it very carefully.17:30:0026913Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—by leave—I make the point, and it is important that this House understand, that this report has been signed off and agreed to by the whole of the Public Works Committee, which is a committee with members from both sides of the House. I think the committee is generally supportive of the idea that the government make sure that they maximise the value of these properties, and that they have a responsibility to do so. I am sure that this will represent, as the report says, very good value for money, and all members of the committee have agreed on that.Bills26913R120726913Debate resumed.17:31:0026914Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—This Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Amendment Bill 2000 is essentially driven by the ideological determination to remove the union leadership and the union membership in this country from as much say in industrial relations as possible. I have to concede that this minister does not as fulsomely push the rhetoric that they are not really against unions—he is far more open and honest about his preoccupation. We all heard from the previous minister on many occasions, `We're not really against unions; we just believe in freedom. We want to encourage people to have choice in the workplace.' I think it typifies a reality that, as I understand it, the ACTU was not consulted in any manner about this. I would have thought that, regardless of one's views that perhaps in some sectors of the economy the unions are too powerful and, like employers, on occasion might be perceived as going over the top, if one was genuine about consultation and cooperation in the work force to reduce accidents and to ensure that people do work in a safe environment, it might have been reasonable to have some degree of consultation with the representatives of a significant part of the work force. We can argue about the proportions and the percentages, and we can obviously note that the percentages might have fallen in recent decades, but I think the average Australian would say that they still have a right to some degree of consultation in something that matters so much to them. Clearly, in this case it has not occurred. And, despite the supposed emphasis by the government on essentially giving people freedom and more options, this is just one more attempt to further erode the unions' say or influence or authority in industrial relations. I note also that, in the latest effort by Mr Hamburger in the building sector once again, the nature of safety committees is targeted and an attempt is made to discredit those that have union participation and a degree of union say in safety measures in the work force. I do not need to recite the particular dangers in that industry. On a daily basis, people are falling off building sites, breaking their backs or losing legs, et cetera. An indication of how responsible this government is, and how much we can believe this government, is their performance with the military in regards to compensation. I say that we cannot trust their word that they are about consultation with the work force and about empowering employees. I have had the benefit of observing their parallel efforts in another part of the federal Public Service, and that is their attitude towards defence personnel and workers compensation. It was way back in July 1996 that we had the Black Hawk accident. A few months later, the minister at the time got around to announcing the first inquiry in that area, and restricted it, of course, to those killed or very seriously injured. Another year later she managed, in a very busy schedule, to announce a series of measures in regard to financial support for those people, and also committed the government to an overall new scheme. So a year after the Black Hawk accident we had a commitment that they would come up with a new scheme for all defence personnel.In 1998, two years after that accident, we actually got to the stage of having advertisements for a second inquiry on a new compensation scheme. That closed on 30 June 1998. A further seven months later, in January 1999, the then minister—and I appreciate that on many occasions he is quite right in blaming his predecessor for a lax and laggardly approach to this portfolio but, quite frankly, the new and current minister cannot always use that as an excuse—released an options paper regarding workers compensation in the defence sector. Two months later the report was received and in March 2000 interested groups were approached regarding a new scheme.We treat the question of workers compensation in general, and more particularly in my case the question of the rights in compensation of people in our defence personnel, very seriously. So when this government said to the opposition, `Could you please expedite in your party processes the consideration of a new scheme for defence personnel?' we were more than ready to cooperate. We expedited it and rushed it through our meetings. We gained broad approval for the government's supposed intention. They were out there saying, `We are genuine about compensation; we are genuine about making sure that the people in our armed forces have a decent work protection scheme.' As I say, nearly four years after the Black Hawk accident, the government came to us and said, `Please help us get this through the parliament. Please accomplish a new scheme because it is so crucial. We want you to hurry up; please don't delay us. We think this is so important that we want your cooperation. We will give you all the briefings in the world, we will tell you where we are going and we will ensure that the new scheme is one which the Labor Party opposition and interested parties can support.' On 28 June 2000, the opposition wrote to Minister Scott to say that we supported the broad thrust of where this government allegedly wanted to go with regard to compensation. Nearly a year later, after the opposition said that we support a better scheme for these people, that we support streamlining, greater protections and new initiatives, though we did have some questions, we had not heard from the government. On 28 June last year this urgent, world shattering matter was at the top of the list of government legislation because they were so concerned—and we heard the rhetoric today about veterans' affairs and defence matters. When the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business introduced this legislation yesterday, he said that essentially it is about tailoring workers compensation and occupational health and safety to the nature of the work force—to employees, employers and cooperation, et cetera. But their track record is not crash hot. It is interesting to note that in the area of defence, where they have failed again, as I said, this legislation would allow a state wide committee essentially to do occupational health and safety for the whole of the defence department. I would be concerned about that, because the other part of where the government was going in regard to occupational health and safety was to say that the opposition and the Australian people should understand the peculiarities and specifics of defence life and that perhaps it was wrong that external authorities should try to set standards and requirements in defence. We would all understand that, in the middle of a situation where bullets are flying and bombs are dropping, you cannot run a normal occupational safety committee and you cannot have normal protections in place. To me, this sounds like the broader trend by this government essentially to erode controls, standards and the need for oversight. One must be very concerned that the thrust of this is rhetoric about cooperation and freedom. To me, essentially it is paralleled by their role with regard to occupational health and safety and workers compensation in the defence area. I strongly oppose the initiatives brought here today.17:40:0026915Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I am pleased to be able to sum up the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Amendment Bill 2000 for the government. I thank the various members who have made contributions to the second reading debate. I thank particularly the member for Brisbane and the opposition shadow minister for industrial relations for his contributions. I am pleased that he has acknowledged some of the good things in the bill, particularly the change from criminal to civil proceedings in many instances. I note that one of his proposed amendments relates to a slight extension of the government's proposals for retaining criminal actions. I am happy to think further about that because I think that, at face value, he does have a reasonable point. That is probably best proceeded with in the Senate, but certainly I indicate here and now that I have some sympathy with what he put in his speech in the second reading debate.Where the member for Brisbane and I disagree, where members opposite and where members on this side disagree, is on the general role and position which we would attribute to the union movement in this area. Notwithstanding the comments of my distinguished friend and colleague the member for Reid, let me say that, like my predecessor, I have no problems with unions as such. In fact, I have been a union member in my time. On one occasion, I even moved a strike resolution at a stop-work meeting. ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—You were a radical?EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—Yes, I was a radical once upon a time. On the other hand, as a journalist I have also been on strike against my will on a number of occasions. Unions certainly have as much right to exist as any other important and long lasting group in our society. This government's approach is not to be against unions but to be against union privilege. That was my predecessor's approach and that is my approach. The fundamental situation is that at present, under the existing occupational health and safety legislation, in a workplace with more than 50 workers there must be an occupational health and safety committee if requested by the relevant union or the relevant worker and, if there is a union on site, that union must be involved in the committee. That is the existing situation, as I understand it. What the bill is proposing is that, if there are 50 workers in the total work force, not just in any particular workplace but in the total work force, there must be an occupational health and safety committee. So we have stipulated the existence of these committees in many workplaces where such committees are not currently stipulated. There does not need to be any special request; there must be an occupational health and safety committee in any business with a work force of more than 50. Moreover, if people at that workplace want the union to be involved, under what we are proposing there must be consultation with the union, but it is not mandatory that the union ultimately be the representative on this committee. We are not trying to force unions out of this process; we are simply saying that the union does not have to be involved. We are not removing rights in this process; we are simply removing a certain archaic union privilege in this process.The member for Brisbane raised a matter to do with Telstra in his contribution in the second reading debate. I listened to what he had to say with great interest. I must say that, on the basis of what was put into the parliament by the member for Brisbane, it did not seem to me that this matter had been well handled by Telstra at all. I am pleased that Comcare have got involved in the way that they have. I am advised that Comcare were not made aware of the relevant employee's insistence that he did in fact enter the site in question with the right protective equipment. In light of the statutory declaration which the member for Brisbane referred to in the debate this morning, I understand that Comcare is now investigating this incident anew and will take whatever action is appropriate to try to ensure that proper safety standards are maintained.The point I would make more broadly in response to the member for Brisbane is that nothing proposed in this bill is going to make the practical situation that he raised different. Nothing that he raised in the debate this morning relating to this particular Telstra incident is going to be in any way compromised or prejudiced by the proposals in this bill. Regardless of anything in this bill, all employers will still have a legislated mandatory duty of care to provide the best possible occupational health and safety standards. Comcare will still be perfectly entitled, and indeed obliged, to investigate reports of breaches of occupational health and safety standards. The duty of care will in no way be diminished, diluted or reduced.All we are trying to do with this bill is ensure that we have occupational health and safety committees in all large workplaces—not just those where there is a union present—and that in those workplaces it is possible for workers and managers, within the constraints of the necessity of having such a committee, to come to whatever arrangement seems best suited to them. If the union wants to be involved, it must be involved. But there is nothing mandating union involvement in this. So I think unions' rights are certainly in no way compromised by this. It is just that their old archaic privilege is removed. Their practical ability to do whatever is reasonably necessary to protect the occupational health and safety standards of workplaces and to protect their members will remain as it has been.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.26917Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.17:48:0026917Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 to 12:(1) Schedule 1, items 9 to 14, page 5 (line 2) to page 6 (line 9), omit the items.(2) Schedule 1, items 20 and 21, page 7 (lines 18 to 26), omit the items.(3) Schedule 1, items 27 and 28, page 8 (line 11) to page 9 (line 1), omit the items.(4) Schedule 1, item 30, page 9 (line 4) to page 10 (line 19), omit the item.(5) Schedule 1, items 42 to 47, page 12 (line 1) to page 15 (line 20), omit the items.(6) Schedule 1, items 58 to 62, page 16 (line 20) to page 18 (line 13), omit the items.(7) Schedule 1, item 72, page 19 (lines 27 to 29), omit the item.(8) Schedule 1, item 74, page 20 (lines 3 and 4), omit the item.(9) Schedule 1, items 104 to 107, page 27 (lines 4 to 27), omit the items.(10) Schedule 1, item 135, page 31 (lines 7 to 10), omit the item.(11) Schedule 1, item 146, page 33 (lines 8 and 9), omit the item.(12) Schedule 1, item 156, page 36 (lines 26 and 27), omit the item.These amendments deal with the issue that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business correctly identifies as the area of principal disagreement between the government and the Labor Party. They deal with the involvement of unions in the committee structure and the operations of the committee structure. I want to make a couple of points about that. I have listened to the debate—I think I have heard all but one of the contributions to the debate over the course of the day—but I am yet to hear an argument advanced by any member of the government to explain why it is that the union participation in the existing committee structure should be changed at all. In fact, the proposed changes go beyond what I believe the minister just described, and I will come to that in a minute. But there has not been a reason advanced as to how that change in the legislation will produce a safer working environment.If the object of the parliament is, as it should be, to produce a fair and effective safe environment and an effective regime for occupational health and safety for our employees, surely that is the test the government must meet in arguing how this change improves that. How, by removing the unions from these occupational health and safety committees, will they improve what is, by an agreed standard, the best OH&S system in the country? No-one from the government has put forward one argument to sustain that point—that is the crucial test. I do not think that argument can be advanced.The true reason for the government's actions is, as many members on our side have said, that they have a systematic attitude towards unions' participation in the community; that is, in every walk of life—whether it is the provision of labour market programs to the unemployed, whether it is cultural funded programs or whether it is their traditional role in representing workers in industrial relations in the commission and elsewhere—wherever you look, this government, in every piece of legislation where they have had the opportunity to do so, have sought to reduce or eliminate the role of unions, and they are doing it here. But they are doing it here out of blind ideology in a way that actually has a negative effect on the stated objects of the act. This is not why we have occupational health and safety committees. Let me reinforce that point.I referred in the second reading debate to the Australian workplace industrial relations surveys that have been conducted, which are unparalleled in their detail and breadth of coverage. They showed that, if there is no union in a workplace, only 19 per cent have any health and safety committee. So, if you remove the unions from the process, what we know from our own research is that only 19 per cent of Australian workplaces will have any occupational health and safety committee structure. However, in those situations where there are unionised workplaces, 59 per cent will have an occupational health and safety committee structure. This government is heading down the path, either deliberately or by misadventure, to destroy what is a very good system. It is also worth noting, in terms of the committees—and the minister spoke about the representation on the committees—that the bill requires an employer to develop, in consultation with employees, safety management arrangements. It refers specifically to employees and not to unions—in fact it deletes unions from the process. There is no mention in the bill though as to how these employees are to be consulted, how the employees are to be selected—that is, who is going to decide which employees are the ones to be consulted—whether they are going to be in any way responsible for their fellow employees during their involvement in this consultation process, whether they are going to be given any training in OH&S matters and what that training is going to be. The bill was deficient in all those respects, all of which are fundamentally important to establishing a safe and effective regime for workers in the workplace. These are our employees. This affects people in this building. It affects all of those people for whom every minister on the front bench has responsibility. All of those people who rely upon and provide advice to this government are being dudded by this government in their own workplace as part of these arrangements. (Extension of time granted)There are a few other important comments I do need to place on the record in relation to this. Currently, a health and safety committee, as the minister said, has to be established for employees at a particular workplace if the number of employees is normally more than 50. For some reason, the government have said they should change that. Again, there has not been any serious evidence advanced as to why that needs to be changed, and I place the same test before the parliament and the government. The minister has an obligation to persuade the parliament why it is that we should abolish some of those committees that presently exist and how, by abolishing those workplace committees, we will improve occupational health and safety. I wait with interest to hear the minister's response to that. The bill requires that an employer must establish a health and safety committee if the total number of employees across all workplaces is not less than 50. The minister confirmed that. We are agreed that that is what the bill does. As I said in the second reading debate, that means that, if an enterprise wanted to, if a department wanted to, they could have one committee for an entire state. There is nothing here that would stop them doing that—or they might have two. They may have 400 workplaces, they may have 50 workplaces, but, if they want to have one or two committees, they can—and this bill will facilitate it. We are kidding ourselves, given what has transpired, if we do not think that is exactly what will happen. If this bill is adopted in the government's form, occupational health and safety committees in a whole range of workplaces where Commonwealth employees are engaged will be abolished. They will be abolished by decision of one of the senior bureaucrats or possibly the minister, but they will be abolished. We can speculate on how many will be abolished. What we do not know is what will be the criteria for abolishing them. The bill makes no pretence at defining how you are to go about getting rid of these committees. There has been no argument here as to why we should get rid of any of them, nor are there any guidelines for the bureaucracy to follow in doing that.An employer must establish a committee for employees within a given state or territory. That is the only requirement. Just as long as you have one in a state or territory, that is fine as far as this government is concerned. If the employer has multiple workplaces, each with more than 50 employees, the employer—that is, the government, the department—is only going to be required to establish one committee. That is clearly provided for in this bill. The government has made no effort to respond to that concern. Frankly, without its addressing that position, I would think the bill deserves the ridicule of the parliament—and that is what it will probably get.The minister said that the bill does not remove union rights. Well, it clearly does. In fact, in accordance with the provisions of the bill, unions are only able to participate where there is no workplace delegate. That is what the bill says. There is no opportunity for a union to participate at all if there is already a workplace delegate. So it is quite different from the position the minister just put in his summing up of the second reading; the opposite is the case: this bill actively prevents union participation—actively prevents it—and for no reason other than an ideological obsession that the government has. The minister said in relation to these matters that of course the duty of care that the employer has remains the same whether the union is there or not—and yes, it does. In fact, the duty of care the employer has remains the same even if we abolish every committee. But the reason we do not abolish every committee—and not even the government are doing that; they are going to keep at least one for every state—is that, apart from the legal obligation on the employer, as good employers we want to maintain a safe working environment, and a committee structure was set up to do just that a decade ago. Every piece of evidence before us tells us that that committee structure has worked very well in doing just that and has produced a safe working environment for government employees. The government has not been able to sustain any of the critical arguments in relation to those matters. Amendments 1 to 12, which I have moved, retain the essential elements of what has been a successful system. They are integrally important and without them we cannot support the legislation.17:58:0026919Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The member for Brisbane insists that there is an ideological obsession on this side of the House. Certainly on this side of the House we have a passion for freedom but we believe that people generally should be free; we do not have the ideological obsession of members opposite that unions alone should be free and that union officials should be more free than others.I will take up something that the member for Brisbane said. He said that only 19 per cent of workplaces without a union have such a committee. Under this bill as proposed by the government, all workplaces that are part of businesses with more than 50 employees will have a committee. So this bill is designed to ensure that we have more committees and that we have a greater preoccupation than ever before with genuine health and safety matters in businesses and organisations covered by the Comcare scheme. The member for Brisbane says that it would be possible under this bill for there simply to be one committee across a whole state; and I suppose it might be theoretically possible for this to be the case. But obviously, if any employer doing this is in breach of the duty of care, it is possible for Comcare, under the ordinary sorts of arrangements, to make appropriate orders and to ensure that that duty of care is properly being maintained.The member for Brisbane said that he had found no argument from members on this side of the House to support removing union rights. The reason you do not find argument in support of removing union rights is that this bill does not propose to remove union rights. We simply propose to remove a union privilege. We are removing the mandatory requirement that the unions be on this committee. We are certainly not removing a requirement that unions be consulted if that is the wish of employees. If an employee wants to be represented by his or her union, the employer must agree to this. But the fact is that this is a right to be involved; it is not a mandatory duty that unions and only unions should be involved.I suppose what it boils down to is that this government believes in freedom of association. If people want to join a union, they should be free to join a union in their workplace. If they do not want to join a union, they should have that freedom as well. In workplaces where people are free or not free to join unions, people also should have the ability to set up workplace occupational health and safety committees, with or without union involvement in them. It should be entirely up to them in this area, as it should be in all other areas. For that reason, the government will oppose amendments Nos 1 to 12 moved in this block by the member for Brisbane. Question put:That the amendments (Mr Bevis's) be agreed to.18:05:00The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker—Hon. J.A. Crosio) 64Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.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.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.72Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.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.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.Beazley, K.C.Howard, J.W.Gerick, J.F.Elson, K.S.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.18:12:0026920Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 13:(13) Schedule 1, page 46 (after line 22), after clause 16, insert:16A Offences exposing employee to risk of death or serious bodily harm (1) An employer commits an offence if: (a) the employer breaches subsection 16(1) (duties of employers in relation to their employees etc); and (b) the breach exposes an employee to the risk of death or serious bodily harm; and (c) the employer was negligent or reckless as to whether that breach would expose an employee to the risk of death or serious bodily harm. Note 1: If a person commits an offence under this subclause, the maximum penalty in relation to the offence is set out in clause 18.Note 2: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (2) Paragraph (1) (a) does not apply if the employer has a reasonable excuse.Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subclause (2) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).I take some comfort from the comments made by the minister in his second reading contribution about this. As he noted—and as I commented in my speech during the second reading debate—we do believe that the thrust of the government's changes in respect of changing criminal offences to civil offences has a lot of merit in it. However, we do not want to see a situation where, in making that change, some employers or some workplaces may think that they have greater freedom in being less careful about the operations for their employees. It is worth putting into the transcript the provision that we think is quite reasonable. It is a new provision. It says:16A Offences exposing employee to risk of death or serious bodily harm(1) An employer commits an offence if: (a) the employer breaches subsection 16(1) (duties of employers in relation to their employees etc); and (b) the breach exposes an employee to the risk of death or serious bodily harm; and (c) the employer was negligent or reckless as to whether that breach would expose an employee to the risk of death or serious bodily harm.It then goes on to have a proviso that that does not apply if the employer has a reasonable excuse. We think that is a very fair and balanced addition to the changes that are proposed to be made. It ensures that employers who are basically free and loose in the way in which they conduct their affairs and expose employees to a risk of death or serious bodily harm, but in the event that death or serious bodily harm does not occur—I suspect more by good luck than by good management—should be faced with a criminal offence and therefore we propose this additional provision.18:14:0026921Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—As indicated earlier, I am not unsympathetic to this proposal, and I am happy to look at it in the context of debate in the Senate. I am advised that, if this were to be accepted, it would probably need further amendment to provide for the relevant penalties; but, as I said, I am not unsympathetic to it and it will be considered further in another place.Amendment negatived.18:15:0026921Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 14:(14) Schedule 1, page 49 (line 4) to page 52 (line 10), omit Divisions 1 and 2.I do not intend to talk at any length about this. It just struck us as a consequential amendment that the government may have looked at themselves. It deals with some transitional arrangements. Part 11 of the bill makes amendments in consequence of proposed changes in administrative arrangements, by amending the references to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the Administrative Review Tribunal. I believe the government's bill establishing that Administrative Review Tribunal was defeated, so those amendments are no longer relevant. If I am right about that, then it is a technical amendment that has merit; if I am wrong, then it will be dispensed with. That is a matter that the minister's advisers can delve into with more resources than I can.18:16:0026921Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—Perhaps we will let them do that at the appropriate place and time.Amendment negatived.Bill agreed to. 26922Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills26922R120626922Consideration resumed from 5 April.10000Crosio, Janice (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—The question before the House is that amendment No. 1 be agreed to.18:18:0026922Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—This matter was discussed in quite some detail before the conclusion of the last parliamentary sitting. I do not propose to go through that debate again. The specific amendment before us deals with definitions of disease and compensatable disease and injury. We had the debate on the last occasion. I think we were just about at the conclusion of that debate. I simply state again for the record that the Labor Party believes that the more onerous test that the bill seeks to impose in relation to these matters, firstly, is not warranted, given the performance of the fund; secondly, is unfair to those people who would be affected by it; and, thirdly, is, we believe, more onerous than comparable tests applying under state compensation systems. We will therefore persist with our amendment.18:19:0026922Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I do not wish to long detain the House on this matter because, as the member for Brisbane says, it has been debated already. I would simply reiterate the government's strong view that we are not putting in place or proposing to put in place more onerous tests than apply in other jurisdictions. My understanding is that the member for Brisbane would be in possession of advice that was provided to a Senate committee by my department, and I think that advice fairly conclusively demonstrates that what is proposed here is not more onerous than other jurisdictions. In fact, it is either more generous than other jurisdictions or comparable to other jurisdictions. Certainly, this government would not try to do anything which would take away the reasonable rights of people. We are simply trying to ensure that they are reasonable, and we are using the standards of other jurisdictions as our yardstick. But, as I said, we are either being more generous than or comparable with other jurisdictions, and I just want to put it on the record again that that is our intention. I am disappointed that the member for Brisbane has not been convinced by the very thorough material that has been provided to him and to the Senate committee by senior officers of my department, in whose good faith and ability I have the greatest trust and confidence.Amendment negatived.18:20:0026922Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 2:(2) Schedule 2, Part 4, page 27 (lines 1 to 11), omit the Part.This amendment deals with the question of non-economic loss in certain injuries. The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 seeks to limit statutory claims for non-economic loss to permanent impairments occurring on or after 1 December 1988. Claims for impairments arising before that date are valid only if an application for compensation is made before the introduction of this bill. The purpose is clearly to reverse what the government would view as a liberal interpretation that has been given to the provisions relating to non-economic loss, which has allowed claims for impairment before 1 December 1988. We opposed that provision. It does attempt to restrict claims under the old act for non-economic loss while continuing the old table of maims rates for compensation which has not been indexed. Certainly, until such time as the table of maims has been indexed, we could not entertain a proposal of this kind.18:22:0026922Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The purpose of the government's amendment is to restore the original intention of the act which has been lost through judicial interpretation. The original legislative intention was that persons who had an entitlement under the previous act, the 1971 act, should continue to have that entitlement but no more than that which they would have been entitled to under that act. Persons who had a permanent impairment were not entitled to payment of non-economic loss under the 1971 act. To date, pre-1988 economic loss has cost the scheme, I am advised, some $11 million. If this amendment is not passed—and I would be sorry if the opposition's position were to prevail—I am advised that total costs, mostly to the ADF, could be in the order of $23 million. So we oppose the amendment. Amendment negatived.18:23:0026923Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 3 and 4:(3) Schedule 2, item 53, page 61 (line 10), omit “10%”, substitute “5%”.(4) Schedule 2, item 53, page 61 (line 17), omit “10%”, substitute “5%”.These two amendments deal with the question of the degree of hearing loss that someone has to suffer before they receive compensation. At the moment, the Commonwealth threshold is a 20 per cent loss before an injury is compensable. The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 will provide greater access to compensation for employees in that the bill will reduce that level from 20 per cent to 10 per cent. We acknowledge that as a very worthwhile adjustment. However, as we were looking at this issue, we took the time to see what the threshold was for hearing loss in state jurisdictions. The 10 per cent threshold is comparable to Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia, but we did note that South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory have a five per cent threshold and that New South Wales has a six per cent threshold. We have therefore moved these amendments to reduce the compensable hearing loss requirement to five per cent in line with a number of those jurisdictions.The Commonwealth scheme, as has been noted a number of times on both sides, has been very cost effective. The premiums are the lowest of any scheme in the country. Against that background, we see no reason why we should not be able to provide compensation for employees who suffer hearing loss on the same level as a number of the state schemes. The fact that South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory have a five per cent threshold and New South Wales has a six per cent threshold—we are in the same ballpark—means that most of the jurisdictions are in that five per cent range. We do not think that a reduction from 20 per cent to 10 per cent against that background does justice to Commonwealth employees, and we cannot see that the reduction from the proposal in the bill of 10 per cent to five per cent is going to have a dramatic impact, although I suspect the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business may have some figures on that. But, given that five per cent is the threshold applying in a number of major state jurisdictions, it does seem to us a fair thing that our employees are able to gain access to the same compensation for hearing loss as they would have if they were employed by South Australia or Queensland or the Northern Territory and, effectively, as they would if they were employed by the state of New South Wales. We think that this is a fair and reasonable improvement to the bill that I am sure would be welcomed by those who suffer hearing loss.I know that there are a few members in the chamber who actually suffer from hearing loss—and that is not the selective kind of hearing loss that we might impugn against one another from time to time. Hearing loss is in fact something that a number of members on both sides of the chamber have—a genuine hearing loss—and I suspect that they would have some sympathy with this proposal as well. So, hopefully, the government might see some merit in being a little more generous and establishing a standard that is on a par with most of the states, rather than requiring our employees to suffer greater injury before they get compensation. We do, I repeat, have the most cost-effective system with the lowest premiums. There is no doubt that this is economically responsible and a decent reform.18:27:0026924Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I listened with interest to the member for Brisbane's contribution on this particular issue and I suppose I would draw a distinction between what the member for Brisbane described as `justice' and what I think would more appropriately be described as `generosity'. To give people less than is available to them in other jurisdictions could, with some degree of truth, be described as `unfair'. But to say that justice requires that they be given the most generous treatment or treatment equal to the most generous treatment I think is to slightly misuse the term. Of course, `justice' and `injustice' are easily bandied around and we always risk devaluing that very important concept, that very important virtue, by too loosely using it. Certainly I take the member for Brisbane's point that people in this chamber do sometimes seem to conduct a dialogue of the deaf. Perhaps part of the problem is that we have been deafened by the noise that sometimes comes here. That may be one of the issues—excessive noise in our particular workplace—that we need to think of amongst ourselves. I am advised that if the opposition amendments were to be passed a further two per cent would be added to premium costs for agencies. So the government's disposition is to oppose the amendments in this House. What happens in the other place will obviously be subject to further dialogue and discussion. If the opposition is disposed to pass this bill, perhaps we could talk further about this particular issue.Amendments negatived.18:30:0026924Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 5:(5) Schedule 2, item 55, page 61 (lines 23 to 30), omit the item.This also deals with the question of hearing loss but from a different perspective. I must say I am rather intrigued that the previous amendments reducing the threshold from a 10 per cent to a five per cent hearing loss would produce a two per cent increase in the premiums. The only thing I can say is that there have to be a hell of a lot of public servants out there who are a little bit deaf in that range of five to 10 per cent and I am not quite sure how those figures were actually derived. It would be interesting—and I suspect the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and I may both go away and do this—to actually check what the profile is in the state jurisdictions where they do in fact have a five per cent threshold, but there is a relationship I suppose between that and this amendment.The bill proposes that, above that 10 per cent threshold, compensation applies only where the hearing loss is certified in lots of five per cent—that is, you have to have a hearing loss of 15 per cent or more to get any additional compensation. So it is actually graded in five per cent increments. Apart from the administrative neatness of that, I have not got a clue why the minister and the government are attracted to it. I made the comment when we were debating this before the recess—and I actually think, perhaps somewhat cynically, that it is likely to be the case; nonetheless I think it is accurate—that if this is in fact put in place in the way it is proposed you are going to find that, remarkably, people's hearing loss will be graded in five per cent increments. I do not think that too many people are going to be found to be 12 or 13 per cent deaf. They will be graded and will be found to have a 10 per cent or a 15 per cent hearing loss; they will not actually be found to be 12 or 13 per cent.It does not make a lot of sense to institute this five per cent revolving threshold. It would be far more sensible and, at the end of the day, more practical to ensure that people were compensated according to the hearing loss that the medical profession identified. If the government want to persist with the five per cent, I suspect that, at the end of the day, it will make not a lot of difference to claims received or processed or the cost to the Crown and Comcare in conducting it. But it just struck the Labor Party as a pretty useless piece of administration that no doubt looked tidy and symmetrical to somebody in drafting it but which in practice is actually not going to do a great deal at all. Therefore, we have moved the amendment to delete that requirement which would insist upon an additional five per cent hearing loss to claims after the initial application. 18:33:0026925Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I do not claim to be an expert draftsman. Obviously, in matters like this, to a very great extent, ministers, no less than shadow ministers, are advised by others, but my understanding is that hearing loss is a rather inexact science and, for that reason, we have decided that it would be best and most practical if these matters were assessed in increments of five per cent. That is why we would prefer to stick with our proposal and reject the opposition's amendment.Amendment negatived.18:34:0026925Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I move our final amendment, amendment No. 6:(6) Schedule 2, Part 11, page 88 (lines 2 to 13), omit the Part.This amendment is dealing with consequential administrative law arrangements. Again, it seemed to us to be just a tidying-up exercise. I do not really want to take up the time of the House. I understand there is some other pressing business about to be dealt with, but can I in closing just say a couple of thankyous. I do appreciate the way in which the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has approached the debate and the issues. We will look closely at the findings of the Senate committee from their inquiry a week or so ago. I repeat my thanks to the representatives of the department who provided us with a briefing at the minister's—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—instruction.10000Crosio, Janice (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Order! Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Brisbane has the floor. I think that if you had let him finish he was about to say that.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—Don't get too carried away, Peter. I thank the departmental representatives who were there by virtue of the minister's agreement and I also thank my own staff, particularly Moira Farrelly, who has done a lot of work in respect of these bills, and David Tansey.18:35:0026925Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—In the same spirit as the member for Brisbane, I also thank him, the participants in this debate and in particular my own staff and the experts from the department, who are very dedicated in this area. To many, this is a rather arcane area, but if we did not have people like our officials dealing with this we would have a much worse workplace, so thanks very much indeed to the officials and my staff.Amendment negatived.Bill agreed to.26925Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills26925R115126925Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendment—(1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (lines 4 to 6), omit subitem (1), substitute: (1) The amendment made by item 3 of this Schedule applies to contributions made after 4 pm (by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory) on 19 May 1999.(1A) The amendments made by items 1, 2 and 4 and Part 2 of this Schedule apply to contributions made after 4 pm (by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory) on 30 June 2000.18:37:0026925Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the amendment be disagreed to.The amendment to the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation Contributions) Bill 2000 proposes a retrospective start date for the measure which clarifies the meaning of `eligible employee'. This is unnecessary. The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that controlling interest superannuation schemes are not effective under current law and that he is undertaking appropriate compliance action. The commissioner advises that his view of the law is supported by senior counsel. Retrospective legislation should be used only as a last resort, which is not the case here. Accordingly, in moving that the amendment be disagreed to, I would hope that the House would support the position of the government. 18:38:0026926Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—It is a truly astonishing position that the government would have the House believe—that is, that the Commissioner of Taxation says that we do not need this law because our existing legal powers are sufficient to crack down on these particular tax avoidance schemes. If that is correct, why do we have the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation Contributions) Bill 2000 before the House at all? If the government really believed that the existing legislative framework was adequate to deal with these tax avoidance schemes, we would not have this bill at all. The government come into the House and say, `We are going to amend this legislation in order to outlaw these tax avoidance schemes prospectively from 1 July.' That is what the Assistant Treasurer did: he snuck up to the fax machine on 30 June last year and said, `We're going to outlaw these schemes with legislation prospectively from 1 July.'What we in the opposition have wanted to do in relation to this is to support the government and make sure that these tax avoidance schemes really are genuinely cracked down upon. We are aware that back in 1999 the tax office publicly issued a ruling indicating that the particular tax avoidance schemes that we are talking about were effectively outlawed, that they would be subject to fringe benefits tax and that they would not be effective tax avoidance vehicles. All we are saying is that we want to support the government and the tax office in making sure that that ruling of May 1999 is effective, and we want to do it by making this legislation retrospective to that date. After the tax office had issued that public ruling, that advice, nobody could be in any doubt as to the tax officers', and therefore the government's, understanding of the legal position: that these arrangements amounted to tax avoidance and that the tax office would do all it could to outlaw them. So there cannot be any moral justification on the part of anyone who comes before the parliament and says, `Oh, I didn't realise that this scheme was tax avoidance.' The public ruling was out there. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration comes to the House and says, `We don't need to make this legislation retrospective to May 1999, because the existing law was effective.' If it was effective, why on earth did they bring in this bill in the first place? All we are endeavouring to do is to make sure that what they said they would do gets carried out in practice. Their refusal to support the Senate's position—which the parliamentary secretary has astonished me by announcing here—can only lead us to be suspicious about whether they are fair dinkum about cracking down on these tax avoidance schemes and catching up with those who were involved in them. It looks to me absolutely like a Keystone Kops scenario, where the government are running up and down on the one spot, a couple of paces behind the burglars, with no prospect of ever catching up to them. They announced that they will bring in a bill that cracks down on these schemes from 1 July; those who are involved in promoting these schemes and those who are engaged in them will simply stop them and move on to something else. Are the government prepared to actually catch the tax? The answer would appear to be no.The evidence in the Senate was very disconcerting in this regard. The Senate committee which held hearings into this had evidence presented by the tax office which calculated total contributions by clients to promoters of employee benefit arrangements at around $1.5 billion, with about $500 million claimed in relation to superannuation arrangements and $100 million related to offshore funds. It noted that these were amounts identified so far, with some auditing still to be completed. So it is quite possible that there is much more in the way of tax at stake here. (Extension of time granted) When we have a government bringing in a budget with a surplus of $1.5 billion, we realise that $1.5 billion is a very serious amount of revenue. What Labor and the Senate are concerned about is the protection and support of the revenue against tax avoidance through these schemes. It is a serious amount of money. The arrangements we are talking about here are not arrangements that ordinary workers can access. Hardworking wage and salary earners do not have access to the arrangements in this bill. They do not have private offshore superannuation funds. They do not have non-complying funds—that is, funds where they can keep their superannuation in excess of reasonable benefit limits. This is tax rorting by and for the top end of town—unadulterated greed. The Treasurer and this government have sat around and let it happen. If they were serious about cracking down on this tax avoidance and recovering hundreds of millions of dollars—possibly billions of dollars—in lost money, they would support our amendment. They would make this legislation retrospective to May 1999 if they were observing their own professed commitment to cracking down on these schemes. We are simply seeking to implement the announcement they made back in May 1999 that these schemes were not kosher and would not be tolerated and that they amounted to tax avoidance. If the government is serious about cracking down on tax avoidance, it will support the Senate's position and it will desist from the proposition that it is putting forward here that this amendment is not needed.The government's handling of tax avoidance schemes is in the spotlight, and deservedly so. There have been some very serious submissions made to the Senate committee inquiring into mass marketed tax avoidance schemes claiming that tax avoidance schemes have allowed the top end of town to get away with major tax avoidance—for example, submissions suggesting that it allowed the tax avoidance technique of making payments to beneficiaries of trusts out of asset revaluation reserves, a major technique used by high wealth individuals. There have been submissions to the Senate committee saying that high wealth individuals were able to use this scheme to not pay tax for a number of years—and, indeed, a number of their dependants claimed social security benefits—that the tax office was prepared to allow that arrangement to go forward, that we had had a single statement by the chief tax counsel, Michael D'Ascenzo, and the Tax Liaison Group a number of years earlier and that that practice was considered by the tax office to have been established by a single comment in a meeting and not even the subject of written consideration by the tax office in a ruling or in any form whatsoever.These sorts of allegations are very serious. They do call into question just how serious this government is about cracking down on tax avoidance. We urge the government to support the Senate's position, support its own legislation being operative from May 1999, make sure that that minimum $1½ billion referred to in the Senate committee hearings is recovered and that hardworking, decent, honest, ordinary taxpayers are not made to pay the tax burden for those who are wealthy enough to pay—they can pay—but simply will not pay.18:47:0026927Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—Very briefly, I just want to reiterate in response to the comments made by the member for Wills that our view is that retrospectivity is not necessary, since the clear advice from the Commissioner of Taxation is that the schemes are ineffective under the current legislation and will be attacked through compliance action, and litigation, if necessary, all the way to the High Court. The decision to provide a definitive legislative solution was made to make it abundantly clear that the arrangements being marketed are ineffective and to ensure that no more people are misled by unscrupulous promoters into entering such blatant and contrived arrangements which may trigger multiple taxing points and penalties. Because our advice is that the legislation is effective and because of the general undesirability of retrospective legislation, the government urges the House to support the motion that I have moved. 18:48:0026928Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I conclude by repeating that if the parliamentary secretary genuinely believed what he just told us we would not have this bill here at all. If he genuinely believed that the existing legal framework was sufficient to crack down on these schemes, this legislation would not have been introduced in the first place.Question proposed:That the motion (Mr Slipper's) be agreed to.The bells being rung—10000Crosio, Janice (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—The question before the chair is that the Senate amendment be disagreed to. We have still got 10 seconds to go before we lock the doors, but I will appoint the tellers: the honourable members for Corangamite and Mallee—lock the doors—and the honourable members for Maribyrnong and Port Adelaide for the noes. The members for Corangamite and Mallee for the ayes.The House divided. [6.53 p.m.]In division—Honourable members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am sorry, the minister will have to remove herself or the count is invalid. Honourable members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I did clearly say `Lock the doors' after I gave indication. There were 10 seconds to go when I appointed the two tellers. I said, `Lock the doors.' For the honourable minister for forests, I am not a minister; I am a deputy chair.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—The requirement is that no member can enter the premises after the doors are locked. I ask you to consult the Clerk on that. If the door is not locked, a member has a right of entry, and the door was wide open.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Again I say there were 10 seconds to go when I said that the doors would be locked. When I appointed the tellers I asked the doors to be locked.DG4Fischer, Tim, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I cannot hear you, I am sorry. DG4Fischer, Tim, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I am still listening to the member for Farrer.DG4Fischer, Tim, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Farrer is indicating, as other speakers have indicated, that obviously the staff were in error. I am not accepting that. The clear indication was that the doors be locked. 4I4McLeay, Leo, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The Chief Opposition Whip does make a point. I had appointed the tellers. I had indicated the doors to be locked. I am not blaming anybody for it. Whether it is the standing order or not, I as the chair at the moment here in the House have requested the minister remove herself from the parliament because the doors were locked and the tellers were appointed and the count had begun.WI4Reith, Peter, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am sorry. Can I please hear the Leader of the House. I cannot hear what you are saying.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—It may assist you to know that I saw the minister walk through the door—the door was open—and there had been no compliance with your direction that the door be locked. Under those circumstances, any member is entitled to walk into this chamber. The fact that you had given a direction which had not then been complied with is not the responsibility and cannot be—because it is not within the knowledge—of the member who is entering the chamber. Under the standing orders, you would require a member to leave. The fact is that the member entered the chamber because the door was open. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Again, I take on board what the Leader of the House has stated, but he also referred to the standing orders. The standing orders are very specific. At the conclusion of four minutes, the Deputy Speaker in the chair orders the doors to be locked. In this case I had ordered the doors to be locked, I had appointed the tellers and the tellers had commenced the count. The tellers were appointed. If one of the attendants failed to respond to my instruction, the minister is therefore I still believe—even taking into account standing orders—ineligible to have her vote recorded in this debate. And that is my ruling. I am not going to take any more points of order. If you wish to dissent from my ruling, please do so. It is very clear in the standing orders—and I will repeat myself again. Once it is issued, appointment of tellers, a count had begun and an instruction to close the doors, it is the obligation then for no-one else to enter here, and the standing order only refers to at the conclusion of four minutes the doors be locked. I am not taking any more debate. If the minister chooses to disagree, take a dissent from what I am saying. Honourable members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—The doors were locked when I indicated there were 10 seconds to go. I then requested the doors be locked. I had appointed the tellers. The count had begun. Again, I request that if the minister for sport does not choose to remove herself from the parliament she will not be counted in the vote. I have appointed the tellers for the ayes and the noes and I ask that the count be commenced.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the Chief Government Whip dissenting from my ruling?XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—Your direction is to the person on the door, not to the minister. The minister is quite legitimately in this chamber. Your direction is not to individual members of this House; it is to the attendant at the door. The member is therefore quite entitled to be in the chamber when she quite lawfully entered the chamber when she came in for the division.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am sorry, but this is where the point is. You can put your hands up to leave the room if you wish. The point is: I am sitting in the chair, I gave instructions to lock the door, I appointed the tellers; and I will repeat the standing orders say that, at the conclusion of the four minutes and the locking of the doors, no member shall enter the House. In the event that a staffer had inadvertently not completely locked the door and a member has come into the House, no matter what side of the House, that member is ineligible to have their vote recorded. I have asked the tellers to commence the vote. There will be no more debate. I have given a ruling. If you wish to dissent from that ruling, you may do so. At the moment, the tellers are in the middle of the count and I think, to help and assist the numbers in the House, it would be better if the tellers could get on with their job.Honourable members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—There will be no points of order. The count is on. Please resume your seat. I am taking no further points of order. I am sorry, I don't wish to do that to the honourable member, because if we are going to continue with points of order I too will say what happened—I saw it. There is a new attendant on the door, and that new attendant, out of courtesy, opened the door to allow the minister to come in. That is the correct thing to happen. I am taking no further points of order from the chair. I will request the tellers to complete their count. The door was locked and the door was opened out of courtesy. The count having been completed—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The result of the division is ayes 72, noes 58; the decision therefore resolves in the affirmative.NaN:00:00(Madam Deputy Speaker—Hon. J.A. Crosio) 72Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.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.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.58Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.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.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Snowdon, W.E.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Elson, K.S.Gerick, J.F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—Madam Deputy Speaker, can I inquire whether you will be reporting to the Speaker your request for the minister to remove herself from the chamber. I understand you made at least three, if not four, requests.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! There is a speaker on his feet. Those who wish to leave the chamber do so quickly and quietly. Those who wish to remain, please resume their seat.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—Can I have your assurance that you will report this matter to the Speaker. Hopefully, he will advise the House of his views on this dreadful incident.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! For the information of the member for Chifley, I am just going to answer that. The minister, once in the House during a division, is unable to remove herself after that. I can assure all members of the House her vote was not included in the count.19:07:0026930Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendment and I move:That the reasons be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills26930R104426930Debate resumed from 13 April, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.19:08:0026930Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 2000 will reform family law to enable superannuation interests to be divided upon marriage breakdown. The bill has been referred to and considered by the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services. The opposition has already supported the policy intention of the bill to allow separating couples to split superannuation assets. Indeed, this builds on the work that Labor began when in government. The bill will amend the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Family Law Act 1975, the Superannuation Industry Supervision Act 1993 and the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 to achieve the change. It will amend the Family Law Act 1975 to provide the ability to divide superannuation interests upon divorce—that is the key change. It will insert a new part 8B into the act which will provide for voluntary or court order divisions of superannuation assets to be recognised.Fund trustees will be required to adhere to either decision—that is, to voluntary or court ordered divisions. Binding agreements will be able to be made by couples in the same way as prenuptial agreements. Agreements about superannuation will be able to be incorporated into the financial agreements to be introduced in the Family Law Amendment Bill 1999, and this will result in couples being able to settle their financial affairs in one agreement.The bill applies only to married couples, due to the Commonwealth's constitutional restrictions. I understand the Commonwealth has been working with the states to develop coverage for de facto couples. This bill will amend the Bankruptcy Act 1966, pursuant to changes to the Family Law Act 1975, to make superannuation payments received as part of a marriage breakdown exempt from the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. This is in line with the treatment of a bankrupt's superannuation.The amendments to the two superannuation acts will ensure that the non-member spouse is given similar membership rights as the member spouse. The regulations that were released by the Attorney-General on 13 October 2000 provide details about valuation of the parties' interests, calculation of the growth factor for base amounts allocated to non-member spouses under agreements or court orders, fees payable to trustees for splitting superannuation assets, and a number of minor issues. These regulations have been out for public comment. I will perhaps return to those later in my remarks.A number of issues have been the subject of discussion concerning implementation of the detail or the practice of the bill. The policy intent of the bill has been supported by both sides of parliament and enjoys reasonably broad support around the community, but there are practical issues. The first one is the issue of retrospectivity. The Attorney-General said on 15 September 1998 that the reforms would not be retrospective. Then in the second reading speech he said that the amendments will apply to all marriages, including those dissolved before the amendments commenced. That was a contradiction of the press statement, and the opposition retains an interest in why the bill will apply retrospectively.The bill places additional responsibilities and workload on what has been an underresourced Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, which will hear complaints from divorcing couples. The Superannuation Complaints Tribunal has had a significant backlog of complaints. I know it has worked conscientiously to try to resolve that backlog of complaints, but this initiative does not provide any new funding for the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal.In the area of education, the government says that additional costs associated with the bill, including an education campaign to inform the family law community and the superannuation industry, will be met from within existing resources. We have not had any indication from the government about what funds will be spent on this initiative, and the obvious point is that you can have a new policy but, if no-one knows about it or understands it because the government does not put any resources into promoting it, that new policy is likely to be of little practical value or effect.I turn to the issue of impact on Commonwealth revenue. Payouts from superannuation funds are generally given as eligible termination payments and the first $96,000 of an eligible termination payment—that is, in 1999-2000 figures—is tax free. The bill does not provide an estimate of costs involved in what amounts to a doubling of the tax-free threshold. Clearly, there would be costs associated with the bill where couples do take advantage of it in this way, and the government ought to be providing some indication and disclosure of those costs. The bill represents, in a sense, the union of two major Labor reforms—the Family Law Act 1975 and the superannuation guarantee charge of 1990. What we have here is a bill about division of property on divorce or separation of spouses. It is a reform which has come of age and is supported by Labor, certainly in principle, because it attempts to fix problems of judicial uncertainty and lack of power to give effect to the Family Law Act—those things have been problematic for a number of years. Essentially, it crystallises the entitlement of a former spouse to a share of what may be or might become a substantial asset. The Attorney-General has provided some figures and projections regarding asset wealth in the form of superannuation.This reform was initiated by Labor as far back as 1992, when a review was commenced by the department. That work continued until 1995. Of course, Labor lost office soon after then, and it does seem that there was some hiatus. But the reform was picked up by the government in 1998. Some three years later we are now at the stage of debating the bill in the House. We applaud the fact that it has been resurrected, but we note that there have been some significant delays in that happening and think that that is a pity. Nevertheless, we do have a law which is set to be enacted nearly a decade after the idea was first proposed.We are critical of the government's lack of action in beefing up superannuation guarantee contributions—beefing up the scheme in terms of compliance and enforcement. There is evidence of widespread avoidance of this obligation by some employers as well as a poor record of enforcement by the Australian Taxation Office. There was nothing in the budget last night which addressed this problem, and I will keep urging the government to take action as soon as possible. The point is, if there are no superannuation assets to split up on divorce, what is the point of this bill? We need to build up those superannuation assets and make sure that all employers comply with their superannuation guarantee obligations. I also urge that there be adequate resources and funding for the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal to deal with disputes more efficiently, particularly now that it has to deal with disputes by spouses arising from this bill. As I indicated before, as far as I can tell, no extra resources have been granted.We are mindful of the difficulties and complexities involved in this very significant reform. While there has been extensive consultation with interested parties and expert bodies, the result reflects that complexity. It is acceptable to Labor. Many aspects of the bill have been thoroughly dealt with by the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services, and I thank that committee for its comprehensive report. The recommendations arising from that report now appear to have been largely reflected in the proposed amendments before the House. I want later to place on record a number of issues which have been raised in the course of the discussion on this issue and invite the government to respond, if it sees fit, to some of those issues. Of particular interest is the recommendation that the Commonwealth enter into negotiations with the states with a view to a similar outcome for de facto couples who separate, and I urge the Attorney-General to be diligent in following that matter up.I come back to the point I made earlier about judicial uncertainty. This bill is not the radical reform it has occasionally been portrayed as in the media. For some years now it has been settled law that a superannuation benefit or entitlement accruing to a spouse is a financial resource that may be taken into account by the Family Court when making orders with respect to the division of property upon divorce or separation. So for quite some time superannuation has been regarded as property in family law legislation. In terms of legal practicalities in the way in which the courts have handled this issue to date, a common result was that the wife would get the house and the husband would keep his superannuation. In some respects, in many cases that was quite a practical arrangement. It may continue to suit parties, and you may not see a whole lot of change arising from the passage of this bill. But what it does do, of course, is give the parties the option of coming to a different arrangement, because they have the capacity to split the superannuation entitlement, and it gives the Family Court the option of saying, `In terms of a fair division of property, we think that the superannuation asset ought to be split in a particular way.' It gives the court the power to order the fund trustees to split the superannuation money in that way. It ought to be noted that it is not compulsory that a party's superannuation benefit be split upon divorce; it is just one more option that the court has when dealing with property division generally. So, while the bill does not change radically the overall division of property upon divorce, it does go some way to tidying it up and achieving consistency with the aims of the superannuation scheme generally—that is, to provide income upon retirement and so lower the overall burden on government to provide pensions and other social security benefits upon retirement.What the bill does is provide the mechanism for splitting a superannuation fund member's benefit into two separate legal benefits by way of a third party order to the fund trustees, which is a legally enforceable order that creates new separate legal entitlements on the part of the spouse in whose favour the order is made. But nothing prevents that spouse from taking other assets in lieu of a superannuation benefit, so a reasonable degree of flexibility remains in the system so that individual needs and circumstances can be met. However, we are concerned about the potential impact to revenue as a consequence of another fund being set up. Where there was only one entitlement before to the tax-exempt threshold for withdrawal of benefits in the form of a lump sum for an individual over the age of 55 or up to 60, as the case may be, that same pre-existing benefit, by being split, will now attract two such thresholds.So, as I was indicating before, where only around $100,000 was withdrawn from the one super fund membership an entitlement by a spouse would have been tax-free, but now the potentially larger sum of up to more like $200,000 would be tax free. This is potentially a double-dipping situation which could cost the revenue an unknown amount. The government has not provided a costing of the impact. It has introduced a safeguard by way of requiring a declaration that the parties have separated before an order of the court can be made. That is clearly designed to prevent abuses and to stop spouses deliberately seeking such an order in order to take advantage of the threshold arrangements and potential savings in tax. We would expect that that safeguard would be monitored in order to ensure that it achieves its objective.The overall reform is consistent with other recent reforms allowing splitting of superannuation during the currency of a marriage—for example, by allowing employer contributions to superannuation for the spouse of an employee. In the event of a marriage breakdown, that would at least make these things easier to administer. For example, if a spouse has an existing fund, there is only a need to transfer funds or roll over the amount agreed to be divided or a portion to the other spouse's existing fund account. Just how it will interact with another important reform in the ability of the parties to a marriage to form a legally binding prenuptial agreement or a financial agreement is not yet clear. That is a matter that we want to continue to have a look at.Superannuation is, by definition, a growth asset. It will vest in the spouse but it cannot be touched until retirement age, and that is of course designed to achieve the aims of the superannuation guarantee contribution legislative scheme. It will grow along the way to retirement, so that upon retirement there is less overall burden on taxpayers, as well as greater financial independence for a spouse so entitled. As to how superannuation entitlements are to be valued to give effect to the powers contained in this bill, that is another question altogether. I guess that is the chief source of the complexity that I have previously referred to. We agree with the overall approach of the valuation being prescribed in the regulations, rather than being left to courts to determine. The resulting complexity is the expense of achieving more consistent outcomes, and I think that has to be an overriding objective. Most of the commentary that I am aware of focuses on the problems and complexity of valuation of entitlements in a defined benefit fund. At the start of the year, I had the opportunity to go to London and to speak to the people in the UK about superannuation issues, and they mentioned this divorce and superannuation issue. Interestingly, in the United Kingdom, they were up to exactly the same stage as we were here. They were wrestling with that problem in relation to valuation of assets in a defined benefit fund. It was certainly their view that accumulation schemes were relatively easy to work out and to separate. The background in the United Kingdom is that the previous conservative government had endeavoured to treat superannuation as matrimonial property, but it got itself into the situation where you could have ongoing contributions from the employee effectively to their former spouse's account. You can imagine that this was pretty controversial and that people who had divorced from their former spouses were not too happy about continuing to work in a way which boosted the spouse's superannuation.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—No generosity.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—In some cases, there was not a lot of generosity of spirit and there was some substantial revolt against the previous model. The Blair government is working on some changes in this area and is at about the stage we are at here in our legislation.An entitlement must first be valued by the court before it can be divided by an order of that court. I think it is significant that, in the existing regime, courts have been increasingly hearing more sophisticated evidence, mostly of an actuarial nature, and that can lead to greater inconsistency and variance in final decisions. So in working out the value of a spouse's superannuation assets in a defined benefit fund for the purposes of this bill, a number of default factors based on future projections and statistical realities will be taken into account by the court in arriving at the base amount. These factors, including expected growth factors, are contained in the family law regulations. The base value, which the court uses as the basis of the ultimate apportionment, is the projected value upon release of the benefit upon retirement, which is a marked difference from the resignation benefit often used at the time of dissolution.The calculation is much easier in the case of an accumulation fund because factors like vesting rules and projected salaries are much less problematic. There are a number of methods available to split a superannuation interest to arrive at a fair result. Some are more appropriate to defined benefit funds; some are more appropriate to accumulation funds. We welcome this flexibility in the bill. We are satisfied with the safeguards in the bill relating to exemption from the Bankruptcy Act, financial agreements between parties, similar membership rights of the parties, valuation of interests and fees charged. We now await a bill dealing with consequential amendments to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act and regulations, the Bankruptcy Act, the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act, the Income Tax Assessment Act and possibly other pieces of legislation and regulations affected by this bill.The bill has been the subject of considerable consultation and I know that the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia has been very actively involved in that consultation. Dr Michaela Anderson and Helen Martin from the Institute of Actuaries have been involved, as well as personnel from the Attorney-General's Department. I note that there continue to be some issues of which the Association of Superannuation Funds have made mention—issues such as the commencement date for the legislation, splittable payments, adjusted base amount, information to be provided for the non-member spouse, fees, trustee discretions and the like. I welcome any further contributions which the Attorney-General wishes to make in the course of the debate on this bill concerning those matters. It may be appropriate for me to stop at this stage and seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned.Questions to the Speaker269352693519:28:0026935Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I seek your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Indulgence is granted.RH4Mr KERR—Earlier this afternoon, I asked a question of the Speaker regarding the non-receipt of some letters in respect of answers published in Hansard but, before asking that question, I had made inquiries in my office but obviously not sufficient. I have discovered that, in an excess of competence, my staff had actually forwarded a bundle of those letters to me, which I had not received because I was on my way to Canberra. So between those circumstances, I wish you to inform the Speaker that the matter obviously does not need to be pursued.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will certainly take great pleasure in informing Mr Speaker of your contribution and of the fact that no further action is required.Adjournment2693510000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.2693519:30:0026935Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—This is the tale of two practices, two GP practices that service my electorate—one in an area with a greater proportion of families on low incomes than almost any other part of the country has, and the other in a more affluent area. The problems they face are a consequence of the government's lack of commitment to Medicare and its efforts to contain the cost of Medicare at the expense of the availability and quality of health services. There is no doubt that bulk-billing has been substantially eroded. Indeed, it has vanished completely in large parts of Australia.The tale of the first practice comes from a couple who operate a small family practice in a low-income area. They bulk-bill. Very few of their patients would be able to afford gap fees. They came to tell me that it is becoming almost impossible to operate a small bulk-billing practice that provides quality medicine. In fact they gave me the names of seven doctors and practices in the local area that have closed or moved, partly as a result of low Medicare rebates and poor working conditions. Some of those doctors have re-established practices in slightly more affluent areas where they can charge gaps.The doctor and his practice manager, his wife, said they had been forced to cut their own pay to keep their bulk-billing practice open. The doctor is taking home $30 an hour—which is less than half the $70 an hour paid to two doctors they employ—while his wife, as practice manager, is paid for 30 hours work at the relevant rate, when she does about 60 hours work. At my request they gave me a breakdown of the costs and income for their practice over the last year: accountancy fees, pre GST, $3,140; advertising, $1,583; bank charges, $1,536; borrowing costs, $511; computer expenses, $725; depreciation, $8,808; donations, $424; insurance, $3,957; interest, $6,654; electricity, $756; locum fees—when they can get one—$1,603; motor vehicles, $20,146; printing and stationery, $3,899; rent, $11,261; maintenance, $1,453; salaries and wages, $141,626; security, $1,069; staff training, $993; professional memberships—one of which they have deleted—$3,204; superannuation contributions, $7,542; surgical supplies, $9,579; telephone, $4,104; and Workcover, $140.Their total expenses were $234,712. The total income of the practice over the same period was $236,709. The profit for the year is less than $2,000 or about $38.40 per week. That is after the principals—the doctor, and his wife as practice manager—paid themselves less than half the rate they would receive if they were working for someone else. It shows that small, quality family practices in low-income areas are an endangered species. The government claims an average increase of $13,990 in doctors' incomes as a result of the adjustment it announced to Medicare rebates in the budget last night. We will have to wait and see whether that has an effect on the rate of erosion of bulk-billing. The second tale relates to the other major factor that is affecting the quality of health care in my electorate—the shortage of doctors. The practice is also a high-quality practice. It came to my attention when I was told that it is not taking any new patients. Patients who have been with the practice for 10 years are having severe difficulty getting an appointment. The practice services 13,000 patients. It charges gap fees of $12, and $5 for pensioners and kids.The government has, since 1996, limited the number of Medicare provider numbers. Graduating doctors are now required to undergo a training program with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners before they can receive a provider number. That has the effect of improving the quality of doctors that enter general practice, but the government limits the number of training places for which a provider number will be available. In South Australia, the training places are limited to 24 per year, whereas 70 or 80 doctors apply. The result, if patients cannot see a GP, is that they are forced to go to a public hospital accident and emergency department, putting more pressure on them. Little wonder that one of the A&E departments in my electorate has a permanent sign telling patients there is a three-hour wait. That sign is there to discourage people and send them back to their GPs. Those A&E departments are paying $70 or $80 an hour for a doctor with a provider number. To the extent that the government is saving anything by shuffling people between overcrowded practices and overcrowded accident and emergency departments, it is doing so only by creating a situation where people simply are not being seen by a doctor at all. (Time expired)2693619:35:0026936Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—I wish this evening to associate myself with the motion of condolence which was passed by this chamber yesterday for our late colleague the member for Aston, Peter Nugent. Because of the large number of speakers and the effluxion of the time available when the condolence motion was being debated, I along with some others did not get the opportunity then; but it would be remiss of me if I did not say a few words on this occasion. There were many contributions that spoke about Peter's speeches and contributions to debate, particularly in this place. In particular was mentioned the speech of his in response to the then member for Oxley.I myself always believed, however, that Peter's greatest contribution was in the party room. He was listened to and he put his case with firmness and courtesy. I am sure it is the same in the ALP caucus room, but in the party room there are some contributions made by members and senators which are more listened to than others are. As I recall, having been the rapporteur in our party room for almost 10 years, on each occasion on which Peter stood to make a contribution he had that degree of respect from all people in the room, regardless of their views on a particular subject, and Peter was listened to in that way. He was therefore an important voice in the Liberal Party and in the coalition party room.As many others have remarked, we did not always agree on issues, but I found him to be a man of decency, integrity and, above all, unfailing courtesy in his relations with his fellow members and senators. In reflecting on Peter's policy interests, it seemed to me that there was almost no accident in the fact that Peter represented the seat of Aston, because that seat, as honourable members would know, is named after Tilly Aston, the blind writer, teacher and great advocate of social justice in her time. Peter certainly was a great advocate of social justice in this place and outside it.When I first came here I was told by a then long serving member who has since left here that, if you have any regrets at all when you leave this place, it is unlikely to be for the things that you have done but more likely to be for the opportunities which you failed to take when they came along. I do not think that that can be said about Peter Nugent and his contribution. As practical people, we know that politics is—to use that old adage—the art of the impossible, but I believe that no greater eulogy can be given to a member of parliament than to say that he or she had the courage of his or her convictions, and I think that truly can be said about Peter Nugent. On behalf of my wife, Margaret, I extend my condolences to Carol and to the other members of Peter's family. 2693719:38:0026937Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Recently the northern Tasmanian Examiner newspaper ran an editorial opinion headed `Uni not getting fair share of funds'. That heading was replicated by the state's other daily newspapers. The editorial was a response to the University of Tasmania's submission to the Senate inquiry into higher education. It analysed the university's submission calling for greater equity in funding for the state's only university and commented on the insulting comments directed at Vice-Chancellor Don McNicol by the Special Minister of State, Senator Eric Abetz.Opposition member interjecting—849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—Well, that is not surprising. The university outlined in its submission a number of very positive developments in education that have impacted on tertiary education in the state. However, the major thrust of the university's submission was a lack of adequate funding for the university not only to offer sufficient courses throughout the state but to cater for the increased demand for places. In response to the university's long-term argument for more funding to meet demand, we have Senator Abetz calling the vice-chancellor's call `tedious'. It is, according to Senator Abetz, tedious of the university to call for a restoration of the funding lost since his government came to office in 1996; tedious of the university to seek sufficient funding to offer adequate and contemporary courses for its students spread throughout the state; and no doubt tedious for Senator Abetz to receive adequate funding to place the 1,000 students turned away each year because there are no funded places for them. No doubt it is also tedious that Vice-Chancellor McNicol should point out that, in order to take up some of the undergraduate overdemand for places, the university has had to redirect it resources at the expense of postgraduate students.The Examiner editorial sums up the situation regarding funding—or more accurately the lack of funding—by the Howard-Kemp-Abetz government. It says:This is a chance for the Federal Government to make a difference in Tasmania. All it requires is the political leadership. Sadly, to date that has been missing.There was certainly nothing in last night's budget to make anyone more positive about anything changing on this front.The university's submission to the Senate inquiry was straightforward. According to ABS Schools Australia, since 1996 Tasmania has blitzed the other states in increasing its higher education retention rates by 20 per cent. However, Commonwealth funding to the University of Tasmania has been slashed by at least six per cent, or more than $6 million, in the same period. Accordingly, the university turns away more than 1,000 eligible applicants a year who either go to the mainland universities or, even more tragically for Tasmania and the nation, do not continue with higher education. Clearly, higher retention rates will translate into increased higher education participation rates, or at least an increase in the demand. This is at the crux of the university's dilemma with the federal government. It needs adequate funding to absorb this increase. It has managed to absorb some of this increased demand by redirecting its resources away from postgraduate students and trimming some of its courses and administration costs. In fact, the redirection of postgraduate students has seen numbers drop over the past five years of inadequate coalition funding from 600 to 220. In 1999 it offered almost 350 places above its target and in 2000 it overenrolled by more than 200 EFTSU.Professor McNicol has argued that, if the government did no more than simply correct the funding slide on a population comparison basis, the crisis could be substantially solved. Estimates are that an extra $15 million would increase the number of students at the university by 1,250. In essence, Tasmania has 2.4 per cent of the 15 to 64 age cohort used as a basis for calculating participation rates but only receives 2.29 per cent of the funded places on a national basis. If the Australian Maritime College is thrown into the equation, the funding figure drops further to 2.18 per cent. Sadly, the hidden aspect of unmet demand is that nearly 2,500 Tasmanians study through interstate institutions each year. Only about 25 per cent of these students study at other institutions in courses or specialisations not offered by the University of Tasmania. Almost 18.7 per cent of Tasmanian home residents are studying interstate. This compares with a national average of 9.4 per cent of students studying outside their state of home residence.The federal government's recent innovations initiatives will have quite modest benefits for the University of Tasmania. Research and development can only come on the back of a successful undergraduate sector. Sadly, this is lacking in Tasmania because of a lack of equitable, adequate funding of undergraduate places. This may be tedious to Senator Abetz, but thousands of Tasmanians and their families want him to support them, not deride them. (Time expired)2693819:43:0026938Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I too was unable to speak on the condolence motion yesterday for our departed colleague Peter Nugent, the former member for Aston, and I wish to do so now. People have spoken in the House of his attitudes, the causes that he took up and the projects that he involved himself in, but what I valued about Peter more than anything else was his character because, if one looked at the things he did here, one could see that his basic character underpinned all of the things that he took up.I really enjoyed his honesty, his forthrightness and his direct way of dealing with problems and people. It meant that you were never in doubt in any way of what he felt or thought. In this place people take so much trouble to hide their true feelings and to disguise what they really think, but Peter Nugent was not one of those. Peter Nugent was a person who in fact presented himself and his thoughts honestly and fairly at every opportunity. I enjoyed that openness of character of his and I enjoyed the relationship that we had with him.I also want to pay tribute to the things that I believe are his lasting contributions. I know that the human rights issues are the ones that people have remembered in the House, but I feel that one of his main contributions was to our lasting relationship with Asia. I enjoyed the membership of the parliamentary Singapore Friendship Group, and I knew that Peter had a very extensive knowledge of Asia and was very significantly drawing bonds and links with the whole of South-East Asia. I thought that was a lasting and invaluable contribution which he had passed on to others, and it will be an ongoing process which cannot be reversed or changed, because he was right.Another contribution was his professional knowledge of technology. This House would not be the same without Peter's contribution to the Presiding Officers' committee that dealt with the technology and the advances we are making. He was a professional in that area and had great knowledge. His contribution to each one of us in our electorate offices and here in the parliament is going to be lasting and ongoing because he brought a breath of fresh air to the way in which we view technology.I want to pay tribute to a past friend, a friend who made a great contribution to this parliament. He was valued in the good times and the bad times. He and Carol certainly had a mixture of both, in a professional sense and in a personal sense. I want to convey my personal condolences and those of my family to Carol and indicate to her how much Peter was valued here, both for his representation of his electorate, which was fine and was the basis of much of what he undertook, and for his goodwill. I pay tribute to him for that. In particular, I valued him for his character.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Before I call the honourable member for Chisholm, I remind the House that the occupant of the chair exercises absolute discretion on the standard of dress. While, as a general rule, the chair would suggest that printed T-shirts are in the same sort of area as the string shirts that former member Mr Steedman was expelled from the House for wearing by Speaker Harry Jenkins, on this occasion I will allow her to speak. 2693919:47:0026939Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise tonight to speak of an absolute tragedy in my electorate—the closure of the Arnott's biscuit factory. That is why I am wearing my T-shirt proudly this evening.I was present when, on 2 May, 600 workers were told that their jobs were going. I was there when 600 people were filing out of the factory saying, `Where has my job gone?' Husbands and wives were trying to work out what had happened, fathers and sons were shaking their heads in despair. They were asking why, and they were trying to work out where in the hell they were going to get another job. Six hundred full-time, part-time and casual jobs will be terminated, and many of these people will never find work again. This is despite the fact that the Victorian government offered Arnott's the opportunity to expand their operations in Victoria, despite the fact that it is an incredibly profitable operation and despite the fact that it had an unblemished industrial relations record.In a prepared statement the company coldly explained how they had injected $100 million to upgrade their operations in Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide. I do not begrudge jobs being created in other states, but I do begrudge them being created at the expense of 600 jobs in Burwood. They went on to explain that they had decided to close the Burwood site as it was 50 years old and in need of an upgrade. This was despite a $60 million profit Arnott's have taken out of Australia. They were not prepared to commit any of this profit back into upgrading this site. Rumours have been rife that Arnott's parent company, Campbells, are interested in selling off this invaluable land for development. In other words, it appears that Campbells are only interested in using the site as a cash cow to pursue Campbells' other interests worldwide, with no regard for the workers that in many cases have spent their lives working at Arnott's in Burwood. The site is 12 hectares of prime land in middle Melbourne and the company could reap something like $15 million from the sale, so a whole lot of faceless bureaucrats in the United States have determined that 600 workers are going to go at Arnott's in Burwood.One of the more spurious claims about the closure is that the local residents were unhappy with the location of the factory. I lived within two streets of the factory for the majority of my life and I have never heard a complaint from anybody. In my years in the office as the member for Chisholm I have never had a complaint from anybody. Going back through council records, there was a complaint about the factory 15 years ago. So that rumour is absolutely spurious. My mother is still in our family home, two streets from the factory, and she has been around asking who is complaining about this site. Indeed, the factory was there before the houses were built.Who is going to complain about living next door to a biscuit factory? There are not too many noises. Actually, there is a delightful smell. You can walk out of your house in the morning and smell biscuits being baked. Long-term residents could even tell which biscuits were coming out of the production line—whether they were Teddy Bears, Scotch Fingers or Jam Fancies. The only downside was that occasionally the dry biscuits did smell bad. But this is a factory that is not impinging on the local area. Most local residents are outraged that Arnott's are leaving, taking away jobs from the community. They are taking away an icon. They are also taking away a pride of place. Prior to becoming an Arnott's factory it was Brockhoff's, and Brockhoff's was a great contributor to the local area. People have worried about the loss of the Brockhoff Foundation support in the area as well. We will lose part of our local history when this factory closes. At a rally held last Sunday to continue the fight to keep jobs in Burwood, one of the most moving speeches came from one of the workers. He talked about Arnott's and his life there. He started at 15. His father said, `You'll have a job for life.' Well, 20 years later he does not. His father worked at this factory. His mother worked at the factory. His brother-in-law worked at the factory. He met his wife at the factory. He talked about how he had seen the demise of quality over time because of automation. He spoke about how you have to make biscuits tougher nowadays for automation, because people do not pack them into bags anymore, they come off conveyor belts. So if you think the quality of your biscuits has gone down, it has. Someone talked about the pride of working in a place and seeing a quality product come off a line. I doubt whether many members opposite would understand these things.One of the salient points out of the closure of this factory is the need to have a good industry policy. This government has no industry policy, and I saw nothing in the budget to say that there will be any industry policy. It also demonstrates the absolute necessity of having a strong union present on the site. I want to congratulate the LHMU and Leigh Hubbard from the Trades Hall Council for their fight for the workers. If it were not for them, redundancy packages would not be going to these 600 people, particularly the 180 casuals on the site, who will now get redundancy packages. Some of these casuals had 10 years service at the plant. Prior to the union coming in and negotiating these packages, they were going to be left with nothing. I despair at yet another callous multinational showing its complete disregard for its work force, which helped make the company so attractive a proposition to buy in the first place. I say to Arnott's: jam your Tim Tam. (Time expired)2694019:52:0026940Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—It is rather intriguing the way the previous speaker, the member for Chisholm, was going on: she belongs to a party whose official policy is free trade. If you want free trade, you have to accept the closure of the Arnott's factory—there is no in between here. It is regrettable that so many people in this House have those policies.I stand up today to raise two very depressing developments in Far North Queensland. One is the outbreak of cane grub. It seems that we are an ill-starred area over recent years. The cane grub has been a constant problem in the cane industry right from its inception in Far North Queensland. The Lacaze family recently came with many other people in a delegation to see me and they said that, in days past, when the cane grub simply got out of hand, you closed down your farm, you did something else with it for a few years and then you went back into cane again. In days past we were allowed to use effective pesticides to eradicate some of these pests. There are no recorded problems coming from the use of those pesticides over a long period of time. Maybe there are good arguments why we should not use benzine hexachloride—gamaxine is, I think, the technical name for it. It most certainly was a very effective combatant against the cane grub. For those people who say that this is nature: well, it is an indigenous insect, but its prolific numbers in the cane industry are not, of course, natural in the Australian landscape.Recently, I flew over the northern cane fields on a very clear day—which is rare, of course, in the super wet belt—and it seemed to me that at least five per cent of the cane was down as a result of the cane grub. This is very early days yet in the season. So people are talking about projected losses of 20 per cent and it does really seem that the losses will be in that sort of order. We may be talking of losses of as much as $100 million. If we are not allowed for a year to use an effective pesticide such as the one that I have referred to to break the exponential explosion of numbers of the cane grub and we are forced to use suSCon and Confidor, we will need a massive amount to cover the huge areas if we want in any way to effectively halt the exponential rate of growth of the grub. Two-thirds of that cost will need to come from government, because the cane industry is reeling under treble impositions upon it over the last three years: record low productivity; record low CCS levels—sugar levels—in the cane; and record low prices. We have had that treble for three years. The cane industry is not in a position to be able to afford the cost of these combatants. In addition, the black sigatoka outbreak has now taken a very serious turn in North Queensland. People are talking about our inability to eradicate it, and this opens the way for the importation of bananas into Australia. A case can now be mounted that we have black sigatoka here. We would reject that out of hand, of course. But that, plus the enormous cost burden upon the industry of black sigatoka suddenly coming into Australia, indicates clearly the absolute necessity for government to have the same approach as the Americans and every other government in the world, which is some form of protection insurance. The American Congress, as reported in the media, agreed to a $15,000 million package for crop insurance—whether these reports were true or not I have not been able to establish at this point of time, but because it was so prolific throughout the media I assume that it was true. So every other country provides crop insurance. There is a very good reason for this: people will not own up to having black sigatoka because they are frightened that, if they do, they will lose their crop, they will be bankrupted and they will lose everything—as was the case with the papaya fruit fly in North Queensland. If we get a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, people will also be reluctant to come forward. (Time expired)2694119:57:0026941Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I want to put on record the latest answer I got to question No. 2307 from the Minister for Transport and Regional Services this afternoon, trying to tell me that the long-term operating plan for Sydney airport has been substantially implemented. I just want to let the House know that we are only supposed to be getting 17 per cent movements to the north and the average figure over the last three years has been in the order of 27.3 per cent, which is 60 per cent more aircraft movements than we are supposed to be getting in Lowe. On top of that, there were breaches on eight occasions of the cap of 80 movements per hour at Sydney airport in March, and I am absolutely outraged that there is nothing in the budget to do anything to implement the long-term operating plan to provide the appropriate funding for Airservices Australia to meet the commitments that the government has promised for the people of Lowe—indeed, the people of Sydney.2694119:58:0026941Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—In the moments remaining, I wish to add my words to the condolence motion on the recent sad loss from our ranks of the honourable member for Aston, Peter Nugent, who died suddenly in Melbourne on 24 April. His death touched many people who had the privilege of sharing part of his life's journey. It was a measure of the contribution that Peter had made to public life that his long service earned the collective praises of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the Human Rights Subcommittee and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, as well as from both sides of politics. He was a campaigner and a crusader on humanitarian issues and had, over his years in parliament, carved out a philosophical position as a defender of the disadvantaged and a conscience on issues such as reconciliation and racism.Many of us choose to enter public office because we believe it to be a higher calling and that we will be able to make a positive difference for the betterment of our community and our nation. Peter Nugent's life was a classic example—for he did make a difference. At his funeral many in his electorate spoke to me of his genuine concern for them, and they had respect and warmth towards him. Peter will be sadly missed by his family, his friends, as well as by his electorate and by the parliament. I add my thoughts and prayers for his wife, Carol, and his family in supporting the motion. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.20:00:0026942House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices26942The following notices were given:SU5Vaile, Mark, MPMr Vaile to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Export Market Development Grants Act 1997, and for related purposes.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Dairy Produce Act 1986, and for related purposes.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony to present a Bill for an Act to amend the social security law and the family assistance law, and for other purposes.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey to present a Bill for an Act to deal with matters consequential on the enactment of the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, and for related purposes.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Patents Act 1990, and for related purposes.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith to move:That standing order 48A (adjournment and next meeting) be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 24 May 2001.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Lavarack Barracks redevelopment, Stage 3, Townsville.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: RAAF Base Townsville redevelopment, Stage 2, Townsville.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Redevelopment of residential areas at Royal Military College, Duntroon, ACT.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Redevelopment of the Army Aviation Centre, Oakey, Qld.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Defence Intelligence Training Centre at Canungra, Qld.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported: Site filling, stabilisation and construction of infrastructure at the Defence site at Ermington, NSW.2001-05-23—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members269432694309:40:0026943Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I would like to inform the House that on 11 May this year, the telecommunications company Vectus informed 138 working families in Bendigo that their jobs had disappeared. They have lost a contract with another telecommunications company called One.Tel, which has opted out of its contract and, as a result, 138 jobs have been lost in Bendigo. Of course, Bendigo has got a very high level of unemployment.What I find most disturbing is that coalition opposition MPs in the state of Victoria are trying to blame this on the Bracks Labor government, which is ridiculous. In fact, the same MPs have got considerable form in this very area. Jeff Kennett, the then Premier of Victoria, promised 400 call centre jobs in Bendigo, two weeks out from the previous federal election. He made a big fanfare of it; the then Liberal candidate was saying that it was a wonderful boost to the city and that this was what we could expect under a Liberal government. In fact, it is in this same area that 138 jobs have been lost. These Liberal and National Party MPs have been disgracefully trying to blame the Bracks state government when nothing could be further from the truth.I have written to One.Tel, asking them why they have taken that decision, but there has been no reply. I suspect that I am not going to get a reply, which I find unacceptable and unAustralian. You cannot just wipe out 138 jobs in Bendigo without providing a reason for doing so, yet that is what the company has done. I will be pressuring them to find out precisely what happened and what has caused this considerable loss of jobs.On another matter, I would like to welcome the funding announcement in last night's budget for the Calder Highway. The Calder Highway is a major highway which runs right through my electorate of Bendigo. The current Liberal government has been reneging on its commitment to fund that highway over the last two years. I have been waging a pretty substantial campaign on that matter, and I am glad to be able to say that $25 million has been allocated to the Carlsruhe bypass section, which will further enhance timeliness in getting from Melbourne to Bendigo. But I have to point out that this government had to be dragged kicking and screaming all the way to this decision. I have raised the issue in this parliament on 11 or 12 occasions and in countless media statements over the past 18 months. But now we are seeing some movement. After all, it was this government that declared the Calder to be a road of national importance, but I had to keep reminding the government of that fact. In fact, they claimed that it was a state arterial road, but we took a photo of a sign next to the Calder which stated that it was a road of national importance. It was the former transport minister, Mr Sharp, who declared it as such in 1997. I am happy to say that the funding has now been allocated for this section. That leaves two more sections to be dealt with before the project is completed. I urge the government to give us a completion date. (Time expired)2694309:43:0026943Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I would like to speak about the wonderful win last night for older Australians and self-funded retirees. In the Petrie electorate, there are 13,000 older Australians aged over 65. What is most welcome is the $300 payment to people of age pension age who receive income support. I refer also to the extension of the telephone allowance, amounting to $17.50 a quarter, for those who do not get a Commonwealth seniors health care card. The move to increase the income limit on the Commonwealth seniors health care card to $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for couples, and $50,000 each for couples separated by illness or respite, will be widely welcomed in my electorate as well. Another good initiative is the negotiation that will be undertaken with state and territory governments to extend to those health care card holders some or all of the territory and state concessions. I refer also to the exempting of superannuation assets from the pension and allowances means test for people over the age of 55 but under pension age, and the increase in the low income aged saving rebate and pensioners rebates to up to $2,230 for individuals and $1,602 for each member of a couple. These moves are very welcome for those in my electorate, where there are many self-funded retirees. The incomes of many of those self-funded retirees are very close to the pension rate, and they have suffered for many years, trying to accommodate for increases in living costs. So these moves are very welcome.Another huge initiative announced last night was the increase in the Medicare levy threshold to $20,000 for single seniors. That is absolutely fantastic. The Treasurer is to be commended for that particular move. I also welcome the increase in aged care funding. It has increased by 77 per cent since 1995-96. We are an ageing population. More and more Australians want the option to stay at home. Many of those packages will include community care packages and will help in the provision of aged care services in the community. On a very positive note, I end with reference to the imputation credits and the abolition of stamp duty, which will affect some five million Australians who own shares. Stamp duty on most share transactions will be abolished, which is worth some $675 million, and excess imputation credits will be refunded to resident individuals, complying superannuation funds, charities and gift deductible organisations. Shareholders will also receive the benefit of capital gains tax concessions when funds distribute eligible capital gains. All in all, the budget has some wonderful initiatives for pensioners, self-funded retirees and shareholders. (Time expired)2694409:46:0026944Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—The member for Petrie mentioned home and community care, so I hope she listens when I mention the concerns raised in a letter I received from one of my constituents. It is time that people in the community who bear responsibility for caring for aged relatives get the support they need and deserve—and it ain't there in the fine print of the budget. I received a letter recently from Slawka Gawlik, who lives in my electorate of Port Adelaide in the suburb of Largs Bay. She described the difficulties she faced caring for her aged mother at home and expressed her exasperation upon finding that the government's aged care package failed her when she needed it most. The letter is also a plea for governments to provide a realistic level of financial assistance and more flexible respite care provisions to enable proper in-home care of aged people. I have raised in this House on earlier occasions instances where aged people and their families have been put under immense pressure by the failure of the government to provide sufficient nursing home beds. I have also pointed out that this failure puts extra pressure on our already overloaded public hospitals. Slawka's letter identifies yet another area in which the government has failed the community. Slawka's mother was in receipt of a low level care aged care package for three years, until January 2000 when her health worsened and she moved into Slawka's family home. Slawka left full-time work to care for her mother. During 2000, the cost of the aged care package rose to $4 an hour and she found it increasingly difficult to make ends meet while living on the pension and continuing to pay for health insurance, household bills and living expenses. She was also paying about $100 per month for incontinence pants—something many elderly people need and for which assistance was unavailable. Earlier this year, Slawka's mother was assessed as a high level care patient, and Slawka was strongly advised to seek respite to avoid physical and mental burnout. However, as her mother has always feared being placed in an institution, she thought it necessary to break into her respite gradually. Slawka therefore sought respite for weekends only, but found she had to book a minimum of one or two weeks. This highlights the need for more flexibility in the provision of that care. Slawka's mother then suffered a heart attack and, after leaving hospital, was placed in the hospital in the home program, but her health deteriorated so badly that a decision was made to seek palliative care. Slawka contacted St Anna's Hostel, from which her mother was receiving an aged care package, to advise them of her mother's worsening conditions, but was told that they had a `no lift policy' and that they would be unable to continue with the aged care package. So around she went in circles. In her letter, Slawka writes:How ridiculous, that when we are most in need it seems that the program can't help. Mum had come to the stage where she needed two people to help shower and move her. We are aware that there weren't any vacant beds in nursing homes, but now the aged care package couldn't help.She says more, but I could perhaps refer to the other issues Slawka has raised in another speech. However, in the fine print of the budget last night I could not find anything that will help Slawka's mother, or people in her situation. (Time expired)2694509:49:0026945Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence10—Firstly, last night's budget announced a range of measures, including: a growth forecast of 3.25 per cent for the next financial year, a current account deficit of three per cent of GDP, and inflation forecast to fall again to below two per cent for the coming year. Those are in the context of a forecast surplus of $1.5 billion for the next financial year. Underneath those things was a range of extremely important measures—in particular, those targeted at senior Australians and self-funded retirees. Members of the Australian community who elect members of parliament and send them to Canberra at times have reason to wonder what they do in Canberra. But older Australians in particular should be aware that, in no small part, these measures have been delivered because of the diligent and constructive hard work and advocacy put in by the member for Robertson on behalf of his constituents, particularly those over the age of 65. My colleagues and I are facing an election this year and, as I travel from one end of the country to the other as the parliamentary secretary for defence, I cannot help but be impressed—if not in some cases disturbed—by the differences that there are amongst Australians. The further you go from the Opera House, the more Australians are concerned that they are perhaps living in not just another part of Australia but indeed another country. My constituents write to me, for example, concerned that we have only one television set for every 50 illegal detainees. But when I go to remote parts of Australia people suggest that we sort the Collins class submarines out by getting them out there to sink a couple of boats. Such is the extreme variation in the views that are held.As we cross the threshold from the 20th to the 21st century, I say to my constituents that, as the member for Bradfield, I will do everything I can to see that we become a country that values the health and integrity of human life as much as one which achieves its economic objectives. In all the things I do, I see barriers to the creation of wealth as being the enemy of equitable social policy. I will strive to see that Australia is a country that nurtures the idealism of young people and that all Australians, irrespective of where they live, understand that their views will be solicited and heard, and that all Australians will be cared for—but that, in return, we expect those who derive a benefit from our society to give something back in return. Finally, for my own children and the young generation in the electorate of Bradfield, my aspiration is that we be seen as an outward looking, competitive and compassionate country; that we are reconciled with our indigenous history; and that we are imbued with the values of hard work, self-sacrifice and tolerance. Everything I do on behalf of the people of Bradfield can be measured against that. (Time expired)2694609:52:0026946Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—Like the honourable member for Port Adelaide, I wish to read a letter that I received about the safety net not catching elderly Australians. The letter says:Dear Harry Whilst you were in Melbourne celebrating the centenary of Federation my wife and self were in the Island State Credit Union Heritage Branch endeavouring to collect our pension. This was due from Centrelink on May 10 2001. Running our cards through the auto balance, we found that our entitlement had not been credited to our accounts. We were told that Centrelink had not processed the payments, and that this was the case with all the welfare recipients served by that branch. As luck would have it, we had sufficient in our S7 accounts to enable us to draw on that. But we should have liked you to have seen the large number of pensioners who were there waiting without funds. Most appeared to be stony broke, and also depending on what was their due. One poor old chap, who was eighty-plus, just sat on the bench looking at his balance in utter dismay. He looked sick, and was poorly dressed in an old hand-me-down suit that probably came from Vinnies or the Salvos op-shop. We were told that the pensions would be available later in the day, possibly after lunchtime. This sad debacle meant that all welfare recipients there today were being treated as second class citizens by whoever was responsible. What with all the ballyhoo about Federation etc here was one old guy with the arse out of his pants wondering where his lunch was coming from. Hobart was wet and freezing cold, what was he supposed to do, walk around in the rain until the powers that be processed his entitlement. The Federal Liberal Government has repeatedly shown its lack of compassion and contempt of older Australians. John Howard repeatedly promulgates his priorities towards self serving policies that denigrate the senior citizens of Australia. Taxing charities (who provide hand-outs to the poor) is a classic example of his ineptitude in this regard. Pensioners today are even more dependent on getting their payments on time, what with the GST to fork out every time they turn around. Whilst we had a thermos of coffee in our old car, most of the others there had neither that or the Vegemite Sandwich which we brought along for lunch. We have spoken to you on one occasion in the heritage branch of the ISCU and know that you are a caring individual who looks out for the less fortunate. But as you were not there to see this degradation for yourself, we felt it behoved us to keep you informed. He says that perhaps I could pass this letter on or read it in the House. This another example of people falling through the net and, despite what the government did last night in its budget, I can assure people in the House that thousands and thousands of Australians are falling through the net, for a variety of reasons. The budget that was presented last night will not go any way at all to addressing that. (Time expired)2694609:55:0026946Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—Today in the parliament I wish to raise an issue of concern to the residents of Buderim on the Sunshine Coast—that is, the difficulty we are having with increasing aircraft noise with respect to the Sunshine Coast airport. As a result of the representations I have received from numerous constituents, I have called a public meeting at Buderim at 6.15 next Wednesday, 30 May. I believe it is particularly important for people to recognise that Buderim residents are absolutely entitled to not be subjected to the increasing levels of aircraft noise which are occurring as a result of changes in flight patterns. I have received a letter from Mr Julian Chester, who pointed out to me that there has been a significant increase in the noise generated by aircraft flying directly over Buderim. This is having a detrimental effect on residents and the enjoyment of their lifestyle. This has been caused by changes to flight paths for commuter aircraft using the Sunshine Coast airport. It is unacceptable that a residential area such as Buderim should be disadvantaged in this way. Consequently, I have spoken personally with the Deputy Prime Minister to point out my concerns and outrage at the way in which residents and constituents of mine are being treated with contempt with regard to the increasing levels of aircraft noise. Mrs Marilyn Keelty has organised a petition of Buderim residents. So far, more than 500 people—and I would expect the number to grow—have signed this petition expressing their concern over the fact that the peaceful enjoyment of their life is being interrupted by the changes in these flight patterns. I have also contacted the department to ensure that bureaucrats will attend the public meeting. They will be held to account by the local community for the outrageous changes which are occurring and which are now reducing the quality of life for people living at Buderim.The Department of Transport and Regional Services has a lot to answer for. These changes in flight patterns are totally unacceptable, they are totally outrageous, and they are totally rejected by the local community. As the local member, I am determined to make sure that we reverse the situation so that the lifestyle of people at Buderim can be restored. I place on record my very strong concern about what is happening at Buderim. It is unacceptable and it must be changed. It must be reversed. These bureaucrats will be held to account at the public meeting next Wednesday.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members statements has concluded.Main Committee adjourned at 9.58 a.m.Answers to Questions in Writing26948The following answers to questions were circulated:26948(Question No. 2182)218226948Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 28 November 2000:(1) With respect to the decision to select the Gosport Corridor as the preferred by-pass for Moree, NSW, what was the cost of the alternative Bolla Bolla outer by-pass option, and did this include the cost of rail overbridges.(2) Was any consideration given to, and costings prepared for, a Bolla Bolla by-pass option that used an alternative to rail overbridges, eg level crossings; if so, what was the cost of the modified option.(3) What will be the maximum speed allowable for vehicles travelling on the proposed new Gosport Street route and how many sets of traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and roundabouts will be included on the route.(4) How do the statistics referred to in part (3) compare with the (a) current route through Balo Street and (b) alternative Bolla Bolla option.(5) Did consultation occur with individual residents and businesspeople along the proposed Gosport Street route; if so, (a) what organisation conducted that consultation, (b) how many meetings were held, (c) how many people attended each meeting and (d) what was the outcome of the meetings.(6) Has an environmental impact study for the Gosport Street corridor been completed; if so, is it available to the public.(7) Was the support of the Moree Plains Shire Council and the Chamber of Commerce for the Gosport route conveyed to the Government in writing; if so, are copies of those letters available to the public.26948Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The estimated cost of the alternative Bolla Bolla option is $54m. This included provision for two railway overbridges and one level crossing.(2) Yes. The estimated cost of the Bolla Bolla option with level crossings rather than rail overbridges was reported in Appendix 7 of the Preferred Route Corridor Selection Report as $36m. However, in consideration of this option the NSW Rail Access Corporation (RAC) advised the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) that its policy is not to allow any new level crossings. Accordingly, RAC indicated that it will not agree to the installation of level crossings over the Narrabri to Moree or Moree to Camurra (Weemelah/North Star) lines. (3) The posted speed limit to be adopted on various sections of the Gosport Street route has not yet been finalised. North of the Mehi River it is likely to include an 80 km/h zone and possibly a 100 km/h zone. South of the Mehi River it is likely to be set at a level appropriate to the urban environment and this is likely to be between 50 km/h and 70 km/h). The RTA will consult with Moree Plains Shire Council before any decisions are made.The initial concept design for the Gosport Street route includes one set of traffic lights, at the intersection of Gosport and Alice Streets. No marked pedestrian crossings and no roundabouts are included in the concept design.(4) (a) and (b)Moree Plains Shire Council has adopted a 50 km/h speed zone for the urban area of Moree. The existing Newell Highway route along Balo Street has one set of traffic lights, four marked pedestrian crossings and two roundabouts. The alternative Bolla Bolla option would have no sets of traffic lights, and no pedestrian crossings. However, it would include a major 4-way intersection with the Gwydir Highway. A concept design for this intersection has not been developed since the route was not selected as the preferred corridor.(5) (a), (b), (c) and (d) Prior to selection of the Gosport Street route as the preferred corridor, consultation with individual residents and businesspeople along the proposed Gosport Street route did not take place on a one-on-one basis. However, Egis Consulting Australia Pty Ltd on behalf of the RTA undertook an extensive community involvement program. The program included: · community interest group meetings;· public displays;· community newsletters;· community response sheets;· the formation of a Community Consultative Committee;· two Value Management workshops; and· the provision of a free telephone information lineFull details of the program are documented in Section 3 of the Preferred Route Corridor Selection Report.(6) No. The RTA is currently preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Gosport Street route, which is expected to be ready for public display by mid 2001. (7) Both Moree Plains Shire Council and the Chamber of Commerce were involved in public consultations and conveyed their written support for the Gosport Street option to the RTA and its consultants during the route selection process. Their views and activities are reported in Section 6 of the Preferred Route Corridor Selection Report. The Commonwealth also received various representations from Moree Plains Shire Council, the Chamber of Commerce and other stakeholders during the consultative process leading to route selection.26949(Question No. 2219)221926949Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 December 2000:(1) In his answer to question No.1644 (Hansard, 16 August 2000, page 19216) did he state that the Calder Highway is a State arterial road and therefore the responsibility of the Victorian Government.(2) Now that the Prime Minister has announced funding of $1.6 billion for regional, suburban and country roads, will he (a) concede that the Calder Highway is a Road of National Importance and (b) allocate funds from the Roads to Recovery program to continue the duplication of the highway.26949Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, in terms of defining which level of government is responsible for which road, the Calder Highway is a State arterial road and therefore the responsibility of the Victorian Government. The Roads of National Importance Program is a Federal Government funded Program designed to assist with the upgrading of nationally important roads.(2) (a) The Federal Government initially offered to declare the Calder Highway a Road of National Importance in November 1996. The highway has since remained a Road of National Importance. (b) Funds from the Roads to Recovery Program are directed to local councils to fund local roads, in accordance with council priorities.Although the Calder Highway is a declared Road of National Importance, funding of projects is dependent on budgetary priorities.Funding for continued duplication of the Calder Highway will therefore be considered by the Federal Government in the context of preparing the 2001-02 Budget.26950(Question No. 2259)225926950Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Who recommended the need to appoint a wine consultant for Kirribilli House.(2) How was the consultant selected.(3) Who is the consultant.(4) How many hours has the consultant devoted to the selection of wines, and what is the basis of his or her payment.(5) From whom were the selected wines purchased.(6) Is he able to say whether the consultant holds any shares or has an interest in the selected liquor companies or wineries.(7) What wines were selected for Kirribilli House or The Lodge as a result of the use of a consultant, and what was the purchase price for each of the wines selected.(8) In selecting the wines, what guidelines were put in place as to the needs of the occupants of Kirribilli House and The Lodge.26950Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In relation to (1) to (7) I am advised by my department that:(1), (2) and (3) My department initiated the process for the engagement of a consultant to provide advice regarding the establishment of a wine cellar and the selection of wines for use at the official residences. A select tender process was undertaken. Five organisations with a recognised profile in the industry were invited to respond. Mr Peter Bourne was the successful tenderer.(4) Under the terms and conditions of the consultancy, the level of remuneration is based on the delivery of a range of agreed outcomes. A fee of $8,000 has been paid for developing the initial purchasing strategy and cellar plan. A further $7,200 is payable over three years for a tri-annual cellar assessment ($800 x 9) and subsequent advice on wine selection.(5) Selected wines were purchased from many wineries from all states except Queensland.(6) Mr Bourne is an independent consultant who has advised that he does not have a financial interest in any winery or retail wine outlet. Under the terms and conditions of the consultancy contract, Mr Bourne has warranted that no conflict of interest exists, or is likely to arise, in the performance of the service.(7) A total of 58 dozen bottles has been recommended by Mr Bourne and subsequently purchased by the department for cellaring and future use. The average cost of the wine was $24.75 per bottle.(8) No specific instructions were provided by me. However a specification of requirements was developed by my department for the consultancy service. This included a requirement that the wines served at the official residences be Australian and represent a diversity of growing regions. The consultancy service required the development and implementation of a strategy/cellar plan to ensure an appropriate standard of Australian wine was always available for use at the official residences. The strategy supports the showcasing of Australian wines both in the short and long terms.The strategy/cellar plan addressed:· a purchasing strategy to meet short, medium and long term requirements at the residences;· recommendations of particular wines to be purchased for a range of functions;· suggested sources for purchasing the wine; and · suggested wine storage locations to meet the department's requirements.The decision to establish a quality wine cellar to showcase Australian wines, an industry which earns nearly $1.5 billion in exports per annum, has been commended by the Winemakers' Federation of Australia Inc., who wrote in the following terms:“May I also take this opportunity to commend you on your interest in developing a quality wine cellar to showcase the range of Australian wine brands, appropriately representing the diversity and character of Australia's wine producing regions. No doubt, the expert advice you received from Peter Bourne will add substantial value to the quality image of Australian wine and `Brand Australia' when the wine is presented to visiting dignitaries and Heads of State. 26951(Question No. 2261)226126951Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) On what basis was the draft master plan for Coolangatta Airport rejected because the Tweed Shire Council had not agreed to extend the runway into NSW land.(2) Have other master plans been rejected because of opposition from local councils.(3) Given the importance of Coolangatta Airport to the Gold Coast, did the useful advice referred to in his Media Release of 1 December 2000 from the Member for McPherson and the Gold Coast business community recommend extension of the airport.(4) Will his Department assist the operators of the Coolangatta Airport in preparing a runway extension confined within the airport site and will he then approve the draft master plan as stated in his Media Release of 1 December 2000, irrespective of the views of Tweed Shire Council. (5) When (a) was Coolangatta Airport built on the current site (b) did the Tweed Shire Council zone the land in question as crown land (c) did the local council give approval for residential development right up to the edge of the Crown land.(6) Has any Member of the House of Representatives or Senate made representations to him, his office, or his Department, either written or oral against the extension of the runway, be it within or beyond existing airport boundaries.26951Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The draft master plan presented a planning concept (ie extension of the main runway) of Coolangatta Airport which not only physically extended beyond the airport boundary but also into land which the custodian and planning authority - Tweed Shire Council- is unwilling to protect for airport purposes. This created a situation where the airport master plan might be simply unachievable. In view of this I did not regard the draft master plan as a feasible land use planning tool.(2) No, but the Airports Act 1996 is designed to encourage planning dialogue between airports and the local authorities around them, and their input has been an important ingredient to a number of master plans. (3) The information in question referred to the impact on the local economy of the airport generally and of the proposal to extend the runway at an unspecified time in the future.(4) I have advised Coolangatta Airport that I would be prepared to approve a runway extension if it was confined within the airport site. The Airport has until 30 May 2001 to submit a revised Fresh Draft Master Plan. (5) (a) According to Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd (the lessee of Coolangatta Airport), there has been a landing strip at Coolangatta since 1936. Regular Public Transport began to be catered for in 1939. (b) Tweed Shire Council has never “zoned” the land as crown land. It is crown land because it belongs to the State of New South Wales. Tweed Shire Council has power to make zoning decisions in relation to the land. (c) That information is not available to the Commonwealth. (6) Yes.26952(Question No. 2273)227326952Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) With respect to the charging arrangements for the provision of air traffic services, has his attention been drawn to a practice whereby some pilots provide an incorrect aircraft call-sign in order to avoid being billed for landing at general aviation airports.(2) What is the penalty for such an act.(3) Have any prosecutions occurred for such acts since 1995; if so, how many in each year.(4) Are there safety consequences of this behaviour.(5) Has Airservices Australia, his Department or the Civil Aviation Safety Authority issued any information warning of the risks and implications of such practices.26952Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am aware that there has been concern that, in the absence of an air traffic control service, some general aviation pilots may not follow correct procedures with regard to Mandatory Broadcast Zone (MBZ) requirements, as they are obliged to do in order to ensure that other traffic is aware of their position and intentions. With regard to the alleged use of incorrect callsigns by general aviation pilots, I am advised by Airservices Australia that this does not appear to be an issue at controlled aerodromes with respect to Airservices' navigation charges. Rather it would seem to be one of evasion of legitimate charges being levied by the airport operator.Additionally, I am advised by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) that:(2) The Civil Aviation Act, Regulations and Orders do not provide for an offence for this type of conduct. (3) To date, consistent with its lack of powers in this respect, CASA has not investigated or taken prosecution action against any pilot for providing an incorrect aircraft callsign in order to avoid being billed for landing at general aviation airports. (4) CASA believes the safety consequences of this behaviour to be limited. (5) CASA, as the relevant agency, has not undertaken any specific safety education targeting behaviour of this kind. However CASA advises that publications such as the Visual Flight Guide regularly contain information reminding pilots of correct radio procedures.26952(Question No. 2278)227826952Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Did he announce a Commonwealth contribution of $550,000 to assist in building a Back o Bourke Exhibition Centre on the banks of the Darling River, as reported in the Bulletin of 30 January 2001.(2) On which date was an application lodged for this contribution and by whom was it lodged.(3) From which Government programme was the money allocated.(4) On which date was the contribution announced and how and where was that announcement made.(5) What is the full cost to complete the Back o Bourke Exhibition Centre.(6) Is the Commonwealth Government the only donor to the project; if not, who else has contributed financially.(7) How many jobs will be created by the proposed Back o Bourke Exhibition Centre.(8) Is he able to say on what basis the Bulletin reported that he announced $550,000 for the current stage of the project and offered the nod and wink that there was more where that came from.26953Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The application was lodged by the Back o Bourke Centre Ltd on 10 November 2000.(3) The grant was made under the Regional Solutions Programme.(4) The grant was announced on 25 December 2000 in a press release distributed through AAP MediaNet.(5) Based on information provided by the applicant, the total cost of the project will be $5 million.(6) No. Based on information provided by the applicant other financial contributions to date have been provided by: - NSW Government;- Bourke Shire;- Bourke community; and- private businesses.(7) The applicant advises that the project is expected to generate some 150 new jobs.(8) No further application for this project has been received or is under consideration by the Regional Solutions Programme.26953(Question No. 2286)228626953Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:In light of the fuel tax windfall, will he consider funding the set up of a fuel co-operative in Bendigo, Vic.26953Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Government recently announced a $555 million plan that includes a 1.5 cent per litre reduction in fuel excise with effect from 2 March 2001 and the abolition of all future half-yearly indexation of fuel excise. It is open to parties of various kinds to form fuel cooperatives to negotiate arrangements for fuel supply.26953(Question No. 2291)229126953Beazley, Kim, MPMr BeazleyPE4BrandALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Has his attention been drawn to a court order issued in Perth in December 1997 giving Mr Peter Brewer rights of access to his daughter, Zoe Brewer.(2) Has it been brought to his attention that on 21 April 1998 Mr Brewer's ex-wife and her partner Jose Resina left Australia with Zoe Brewer, and that this act has been determined by the Family Court of Western Australia to be in defiance of its court order granting Mr Brewer rights of access to his daughter.(3) Is it the case that Mr Resina illegally left Australia in 1999, thereby forfeiting a recognisance of $20,000 which was being held by the court.(4) Is there any mechanism available to the Commonwealth Government whereby this forfeited recognisance money could be made available to Mr Brewer to enable him to pursue his legal battle to have his daughter returned to Australia.(5) In a letter to Mr Brewer, dated 15 January 1999, did the Australian Federal Police (AFP) undertake to investigate the possibility of extraditing Mr Resina and tell Mr Brewer the Crown Solicitor's attempts in this regard would be monitored; if so, have there been any outcomes from the investigations; if so what are those outcomes.(6) What assistance has his Department provided to Mr Brewer following the promise of help in a letter from him dated 25 January 2000.(7) Is there any other form of assistance that his Department, or any other Commonwealth Government agency, can offer Mr Brewer in his attempt to have the Family Court's determination enforced. 26954Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, I have been fully briefed by my Department on the court order issued in Perth in December 1997, which gave Mr Brewer rights of access to his daughter Zoe Brewer, and more broadly, on the circumstances surrounding Mr Brewer's proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Convention”).The order made in the Family Court of Western Australia on 17 December 1997 formed part of Mr Brewer's application for access made on 29 April 1999 under the Convention.That access application was translated into French and transmitted by my Department to the French Central Authority on 1 June 1999. Mr Brewer made the application following the rejection on 12 April 1999 by the French Central Authority of his application for the return of Zoe to Australia under Article 27 of the Convention.On 6 April 2000 a provisional order for access was made in the French Regional Court of Grasse. This order was made in similar terms to the 17 December 1997 order but takes into account the child's current French residency status and provides for the contact sought by Mr Brewer in his application for access. The mother subsequently appealed this decision and, to date, the appeal application has not been heard.(2) Yes, I am informed that Mr Brewer's ex partner and her partner Jose Resina left Australia with Zoe Brewer on 21 April 1998 after Orders made in the Family Court of Western Australia on 17 December 1997 prohibited Zoe from leaving Australia.As the child was born outside of marriage, Western Australian law, not Commonwealth law, determined the parents' respective rights and obligations in relation to the child. At the time of the removal, the Family Court Act 1975 (WA) provided that a mother of an ex nuptial child had full custodial and guardianship rights in relation to that child and an unmarried father had no statutory rights of custody of his child.Therefore, at the time of the removal, Mr Brewer did not have rights of custody under Western Australian law and, as a result, had no rights of custody under the Convention.Nevertheless, the Family Court of Western Australia made a Declaration on 12 August 1998, in accordance with Article 15 of the Convention, that the removal of the child from Australia was wrongful. That decision was not binding on a French Court or the French Central Authority. It was the opinion of the French Central Authority that Mr Brewer's application for the return did not fulfil the “rights of custody” requirements of the Convention. Article 27 of the Convention provides that a Central Authority or Contracting State is not bound to accept an application if it considers the requirements of the Convention are not fulfilled or that the application is otherwise not well founded.Mr Brewer's lack of “rights of custody” under the Convention was the basis of the refusal by the French Central Authority to accept Mr Brewer's application for the return of his child. I note that unmarried Western Australian fathers were given parental responsibility by virtue of amendments contained in the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) which commenced on 26 September 1998.(3) I have been advised by the Western Australian Crown Solicitor's Office that to answer the question would offend s.243 of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA). It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment.(4) The possibility of releasing any money held by the Family Court of Western Australia, which is a state court, is a matter for that Court or for the Western Australian Attorney-General to determine. (5) I am advised that the AFP can find no reference to a letter dated on 15 January 1999. There is, however, correspondence dated 15 October 1999.In the letter dated 15 October 1999, the AFP advised Mr Brewer that Commonwealth offences committed in this case were incidental to core State charges and would probably not be considered as extraditable offences in isolation.The Crown Solicitor in Western Australia was identified as the primary agent with responsibility for any extradition requests. The Crown Solicitor has since advised the AFP that the extradition request was not approved by the Western Australian Police Commissioner. I am advised that the AFP gave no undertaking to advise Mr Brewer of the results of the extradition request and that Mr Brewer was also in contact with the Crown Solicitor at the time.(6) As outlined in question 1, my Department assisted Mr Brewer to seek enforcement of his access rights under the Convention after he made an application for access under the Convention to France. A French provisional order for access, in similar terms to those sought in Mr Brewer's application, was obtained on 6 April 2000. With the making of that order, the French Central Authority's power to act under the Convention and the involvement of the Australian Commonwealth Central Authority ceased.The mother has now appealed that decision, as she is entitled to do under French law. That appeal is a private family law matter between the parties.I am advised that financial assistance is available in France for such proceedings. My Department has advised Mr Brewer that such assistance is available, but to the knowledge of my Department, he has not yet completed the forms required by the French authorities to determine his eligibility for assistance.(7) As I have explained, the declaration of the Family Court of Western Australia that the removal of Zoe from Australia was wrongful was not legally binding in France. The French Central Authority's refusal to accept Mr Brewer's application for Zoe' s return to Australia was permitted by the terms of the Convention. There is, therefore, nothing further the Australian Government can do to assist him to have Zoe returned to Australia. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has been consulted in relation to the Brewer matter generally and has confirmed that this matter is for Mr Brewer to pursue privately through the French legal system.Following the French Central Authority's refusal to accept the return application, France became the appropriate jurisdiction to determine issues relating to residence and contact arrangements for Zoe. The French Court made orders for contact. The mother appealed against those orders. The appeal has not yet been listed for hearing. As Mr Brewer retained a private lawyer for the appeal proceedings, the matter is a private family law matter between Mr Brewer and the mother. Therefore, France is now the appropriate jurisdiction to determine the outcome of the appeal relating to orders made following Mr Brewer's successful application for access.26955(Question No. 2292)229226955Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Has his Department recently held discussions with Fairfield City Councillor Robert Cork, concerning plans to change the local zoning in the Badgerys Creek area.(2) Did his Department tell Clr Cork during discussions that the changes to zoning would only approve buildings compatible with an airport.(3) When were the discussions were held.(4) Which employees of his Department spoke to Clr Cork.(5) Has he been involved in any discussions directly with Clr Cork; if so, when were the discussions held.(6) Were other people involved in these discussions; if so, what are the names of the people involved in these discussions.(7) Has his Department plans to change the zoning of the Badgerys Creek area so that only buildings compatible with an airport will be approved.26955Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) to (6) Neither I nor any members of my staff, nor relevant officers of the Department of Transport and Regional Services, can recollect any recent discussion with a person identifying himself as a Fairfield City Councillor in relation to this matter. (7) The Government has decided to retain ownership of the Badgerys Creek site and to legislate to protect the site from incompatible development in surrounding areas. The measures required to implement this decision are currently being examined.26956(Question No. 2307)230726956Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Will Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport (KSA) not be privatised until the noise pollution problems at the airport have been permanently resolved, consistent with the Governments Putting People First policy.(2) Is the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) for KSA still to be fully implemented.(3) Under the LTOP, what is the average percentage of aircraft movements to the north, west and east of the airport for the last three years, individually and in aggregate.(4) Is the Government in receipt of advice from Airservices Australia that the LTOP for KSA is unsafe or unworkable.(5) Do Sydney residents receive more aircraft noise now than before the LTOP was introduced.(6) Are Sydney residents more at risk of aircraft crashes since the LTOP was introduced.(7) Can the LTOP be fully implemented with the Government's proposed expansion of Sydney Airport and Bankstown Airport; if not, why not.26956Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government has decided, following consideration of the scoping study report into the sale of the Airport, to sell Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport by a 100% trade sale to be completed in the second half of this year.(2) The Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) has been substantially implemented with the exception of a small number of elements. For example, the restructuring of the arrival airspace has yet to be implemented. This includes implementation of the “trident” and “power-off” approaches.(3) 1998 28.3% (north), 8.3% (west), 11.4% (east) 1999 27.2% (north), 9.6% (west), 11.1% (east) 2000 26.5% (north), 7.1% (west), 14.8% (east) Aggregate 27.3% (north), 8.3% (west), 12.5% (east)(4) No.(5) LTOP introduced a regime of noise sharing. The Plan introduced significant reductions in noise exposure for those areas most heavily impacted under Labor's noise concentration regime. Noise sharing, by definition, resulted in some areas receiving an increase in noise while others received a decrease. However, the areas subject to an increase receive much lower levels of noise exposure than those experienced by areas close to the Airport under Labor's “Bennelong Funnel”.(6) Safety factors have been the overriding consideration in establishing the noise sharing regime at Sydney Airport. In establishing these arrangements under LTOP the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon John Sharp MP, directed Airservices Australia to undertake formal safety analyses of the operational components of the Plan prior to their implementation. Airservices Australia advises that a safety case was undertaken for each phase of LTOP implementation.(7) I am advised that the sale of Sydney Airport and the proposed role for Bankstown Airport as an overflow airport will not be an impediment to the implementation of the remaining elements of LTOP - see response to question (2).26957(Question No. 2308)230826957Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:Is he aware of the increased health risks to local residents around Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and Port Botany from long term exposure to toxic emissions associated with road transport travelling to and from the airport. 26957Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No information is available on the specific contribution to the total toxics pollutant load made by vehicles travelling to and from Sydney Airport. However, I am advised that traffic studies commissioned for the then Federal Airports Corporation indicate that the proportion of total motor vehicle activity which can be directly attributed to the Airport's operations rapidly diminishes as the distance from the Airport increases.26957(Question No. 2310)231026957Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Can he provide air toxic emissions data and risk analysis covering specific known carcinogens and toxins, including but not restricted to (a) benzene, (b) 1-3 butadiene and (c) toluene generated by total airport operations at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport (KSA) and Bankstown Airport during 2000.(2) Is he able to say whether Sydney Airport Corporation Limiteds (SACL) claim of insignificant health risks from exposure to emissions around Sydney airport during the Commission of Inquiry into the Precision Runway Monitoring (PRM) System north of KSA, excluded measurement of the health risk north of Sydney airport and did not assess risk from long term exposure to specific transport-emission related carcinogens such as benzene, 1-3 butadiene and toluene.(3) Is he able to say whether, according to the NSW Cancer Council, the highest occurrence area for lung cancer in the eastern half of the Sydney basin is concentrated around Sydney Airport and Port Botany.(4) Can he provide evidence in support of SACLs claim during the March 2000 PRM Inquiry that its two air pollution monitors recorded no significant change in air emissions since 1992.(5) Can he verify whether SACLs finding of insignificant risk on the basis of the monitoring data used in this assessment is applicable for inner western Sydney suburbs downwind of Sydney airport.(6) Can he provide air toxic emissions data and risk analysis covering specific known carcinogens and toxins, including (a) benzene, (b) 1-3 butadiene and (c) toluene generated by total airport operations at KSA and Bankstown Airport during 2010 to reflect the metropolitan area impacts of the publicised scenarios of (i) removing regional aircraft from KSA, (ii) increasing the numbers of jet operations at KSA and (iii) expanding Bankstown Airport.(7) Can he quantify what lung cancer risk in the Sydney metropolitan area is attributable to toxic transport emissions, in view of the reported 53% risk factor quoted by the US Environment Protection Agency for the Minneapolis St Paul metropolitan area, and also in view of the closed-basin nature of the Sydney metropolitan area, and the relatively high level of benzene in Australian motor vehicle fuel by world standards.26957Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am unaware of any information on the quantity of emissions of the specified pollutants generated by Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and Bankstown Airport operations for the year 2000.(2) I am advised that evidence provided by the Sydney Airports Corporation Limited outlined the nature of the air quality monitoring arrangements on and close to Sydney Airport, listed the types of emissions assessed (which do not include benzine 1-3 butadiene and toluene) and indicated general compliance with standards for the pollutants measured. (3) I am advised that examination of the latest available report of the NSW Cancer Council on this issue (Cancer Maps for NSW: Variation by Local Government Area 1991-1995) shows that, in the eastern half of the Sydney Basin, significantly higher than NSW average rates of lung cancer in males occur in Leichhardt, Sydney, South Sydney, Marrickville and Ashfield; for females it is in Sydney, South Sydney, Randwick, Leichhardt and Waverley. Therefore, the highest rates of lung cancer in the eastern half of the Sydney basin are not concentrated around Sydney Airport and Port Botany.(4) Air quality on and in the vicinity of Sydney Airport has been monitored since 1992 by the airport operator. I am advised that the air quality data gathered by the operator is sent to the NSW Environment Protection Authority for validation and incorporation into its metropolitan air quality results. Reports on the air quality monitoring are public documents and copies can be made available to the Honourable Member.(5) I am advised that the NSW Environment Protection Authority operates a network of permanent air quality monitoring stations throughout the Sydney Basin. One of these stations is located at Earlwood in the inner west. Therefore there is independent ongoing monitoring of air quality in that area.(6) I am unaware of the existence of any specific information for the scenarios referred to in the question.(7) A facts sheet available on the internet site of the Cancer Council of New South Wales indicates that 77% of lung cancers in women and 84% of lung cancers in men in Australia are caused by cigarette smoking. A number of other risk factors are identified. Risks attributable to toxic transport emissions, as such, are not quantified.26958(Question No. 2314)231426958Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Has he received any contributions or gifts from vested corporate interests in Sydney Airport Corporation and Bankstown Airport Corporation and their related ground transport infrastructure; if so, what are the details.(2) Is he able to say whether his family, other Ministers or his political party have received contributions or gifts from vested corporate interests in Sydney Airport Corporation and Bankstown Airport Corporation and their related ground transport infrastructure; if so, what are the details.26958Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) The details of gifts received by Ministers and their families are recorded in the Register of Members' Interests or the Register of Senators' Interests as the case may be.The details of donations to political parties can be obtained through the Australian Electoral Commission.26958(Question No. 2316)231626958Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Do many airports now ban aircraft that do not comply with noise levels as described in Chapter 3 of Annex 16, Volume 1 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation.(2) Do the airports include (a) Montreal (Dorval) and Toronto (Lester B Pearson) in international airports Canada, (b)Ruzyne (Prague) Airport in the Czech Republic, (c) Copenhagen Airport Roskilde in Denmark, (d) Lappeenranta Airport in Finland, (e) Charles de Gaulle Airport in France, (f) Dresden, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hannover-Langenhagen, Cologne-Bonn, Munich, Paderborn-Lippstadt, Schonefeld, Tegel and Tempelhof airports in Germany, (g) Alghero Airport (Milan) in Italy, (h) Luxembourg International Airport in Luxembourg, (i) Schiphol Airport in The Netherlands, (j) Oslo Gardemoen Airport in Norway, (k) Biggen Hill, Gatwick, Heathrow, Kent, London City, Southampton and Stanstead airports in the UK and (l) John Wayne-Orange County, Santa Monica, Aspen-Pitkin County/Sardy Field, Ronald Reagan National and Jackson Hole airports in the USA. (3) Are Chapter 3 aircraft 50% quieter than the aircraft presently allowed in Sydney Airport.(4) Will Sydney be added to the list of countries banning aircraft that do not comply with noise levels as described in Chapter 3 of Annex 16, Volume 1 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation; if so, when; if not, why not.(5) Is he able to say whether the World Health Organization has suggested a standard guideline value for average outdoor noise levels of 55 dB(A) be applied during normal daytime in order to prevent significant interference with the normal activities of local communities; if so, how many people at any time in the Sydney area are likely to be affected by aircraft noise levels that exceed this level.(6) Is he able to say whether the OECD, in 1986, reported thresholds for noise nuisance as being (in day-time LAeq) (a) noise exposure at 55-60 dB(A) noise creates annoyance, (b) noise exposure at 60-65 dB(A) annoyance increases considerably and (c) noise exposure above 65 dB(A) constrained behaviour patterns, symptomatic of serious damage caused by noise.(7) How many people at any one time in the Sydney area are likely to be affected by aircraft noise levels that exceed these levels.26959Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) passed a resolution in 1990 to phase out Chapter 2 aircraft by March 2002. The major aviation countries have introduced restrictions on Chapter 2 aircraft in response the ICAO resolution. I am pleased to say that Australia has been at the forefront of these initiatives.I am not prepared to devote the resources that would be required to establish in detail the operational constraints applying to Chapter 2 aircraft at all the airports specified in the Honourable Member's question.(3) and (4) The aircraft that operate into Sydney Airport are almost exclusively Chapter 3 aircraft. A very small number of Chapter 2 aircraft do operate into the Airport. In accordance with the ICAO resolution Australia has introduced Regulations banning operations by Chapter 2 aircraft by 31 March 2002.The perceived loudness of a Chapter 3 aircraft is typically about half that of a Chapter 2 aircraft.(5) The World Health Organization (WHO) has adopted a standard of 55 dB(A) Leq as a guideline value for preventing serious annoyance in outdoor living areas. Airservices Australia's evaluation of aircraft noise exposure patterns around Sydney Airport on the average day during the period 1 July to 30 September 2000 indicates that approximately 100,000 persons were exposed to noise exceeding 20 ANEF (this is approximately equivalent to 55 dB(A) Leq). To place this in context the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority estimates that approximately 1.5 million Sydney residents are exposed to road traffic noise levels exceeding the WHO guidelines.(6) Yes.(7) Airservices Australia's evaluation of aircraft noise exposure patterns around Sydney Airport on the average day during the period 1 July to 30 September 2000 indicates that approximately 100,000 persons were exposed to aircraft noise equal to or exceeding 20 ANEF (this is approximately equivalent to 55 dB(A) Leq), approximately 23,000 persons were exposed to aircraft noise equal to or exceeding 25 ANEF (this is approximately equivalent to 60 dB(A) Leq) and approximately 4,000 persons were exposed to aircraft noise equal to or exceeding 30 ANEF (this is approximately equivalent to 65 dB(A) Leq).Residences in areas exposed to aircraft noise equal to or exceeding 30 ANEF are eligible for acoustic insulation under the Sydney Airport Noise Insulation Program.26960(Question No. 2318)231826960Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Did the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development issue a Media Statement T3/98 on 14 January 1998 titled Noise Sharing Improvements for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport (KSA).(2) Does paragraph 4 of that media statement speak of an agreement reached between the Minister and Airservices Australia concerning noise-sharing improvements at KSA.(3) What was the nature of the agreement made between Airservices Australia and the then Minister.(4) Was the agreement in writing; if so, were any of the documents that formed the agreement generally made available to the public at the time of the making of the agreement.(5) Is he able to say what is the source of the revised procedures as stated against the four descriptors contained in paragraph 4,of the then Minister's Media Statement T3/98.(6) Will he provide copies of all of the documents that collectively make up the agreement; if not, why not.(7) Will he provide a copy of any internal correspondence, including background notes, between his Department and Airservices Australia regarding this agreement.(8) What are the current distribution arrangements for Airservices Australia background notes and if they are different today, what were the distribution arrangements for Airservices Australia background notes in 1998.(9) For the twelve months to January 2001 on weekdays, what was the percentage of time that noise-sharing modes were used for air traffic at KSA for the full hour between 0600Hr and 0700Hr inclusive.(10) What percentage of time that noise-sharing modes for air traffic at KSA was not possible due to weather impacts.(11) What other factors affected the non-use of noise-sharing modes during this period.(12) For the twelve months to January 2001 on weekdays, what was the percentage of time that noise-sharing modes were used for air traffic at KSA at 1100Hr.(13) What percentage of time that noise-sharing modes for air traffic at KSA was not possible due to weather impacts between 1100Hr and 1500Hr inclusive.(14) What other factors affected the non-use of noise-sharing modes during this period.(15) For the last twelve months on the weekdays 'weather permitting', has the use of a noise-sharing mode continued to and beyond 1500 hours about 25% of the time.(16) For the twelve months to January 2001 on weekdays, what was the percentage of time that noise-sharing modes were used for air traffic at KSA from 2000Hr till curfew.(17) What percentage of time that noise-sharing modes for air traffic at KSA was not possible due to weather impacts during this period.(18) What other factors affected the non-use of noise-sharing modes during this period.(19) Are callers to the Noise Inquiry unit in relation to the operations of air traffic at KSA, when calling about the lack of the agreed change, frequently advised the reason for the failure to change to a noise-sharing mode is due traffic; if so, what are the top ten reasons for the failure to change to the noise-sharing modes at the agreed times.(20) Is the repeated failure of Airservices Australia to achieve the agreed change to noise-sharing modes and the constant use of the excuse 'due traffic' at odds with the statement made in Media Statement T3/98 that, weather permitting, noise sharing modes based on the use of all three runways will be used irrespective of forecast traffic demand.26960Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) to (7) I understand that the revised procedures were developed by Airservices Australia and announced by the then Minister in response to community concerns at that time about particular areas being subjected to prolonged periods of aircraft noise. There was no formal documentation of an agreement over and above the media statement of 14 January 1998 and the associated explanatory material issued as a “Backgrounder” by Airservices Australia dated 19 January 1998. (8) It is assumed that the `background notes' referred to in the question are the `Briefing Notes' for Sydney Airport. The Briefing Notes for Sydney Airport are currently issued to members of the Sydney Airport Community Forum (SACF) and, on request, to members of the community. This task is currently carried out by the SACF secretariat based within the Department of Transport and Regional Services. The secretariat has been responsible for distributing the Briefing Notes for several years. I am advised that it carried out this function in 1998.(9) For the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000, based on times listed on the Automatic Terminal Information System (ATIS), the noise sharing modes were used for the full hour between 6am to 7am on 3.8% of the days. However it should be noted that noise sharing modes were used for at least some part of the period between 6am to 7am for 83.8% of the days.(10) Accurate runway mode usage data that identifies weather as the sole determinant in nominating a runway is not available. Runway usage is impacted by many operational requirements and there can be multiple factors involved in nominating a runway for use, including weather conditions.(11) Other than weather conditions, factors that affect runway selection include runway serviceability, maintenance works, obstructions on the runway, navigation aid serviceability and maintenance, lighting failures, traffic levels, traffic mix, traffic distribution and disposition, pilot requirements and the level of delay being experienced by aircraft.(12) The use of crossing runways commenced at 1100hr for 15% of the weekdays during the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000.(13) Refer to answer to questions (10) and (11).(14) Refer to answer to questions (10) and (11).(15) Crossing runway use beyond 1500hrs occurred on 29.2% of the weekdays during the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000. (16) For the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000 crossing runways were used for the full 3 hour period from 2000 to 2300hrs for 10.4% of the days. (17) Refer answer to questions (10) and (11).(18) Refer answer to questions (10) and (11).(19) Traffic levels is one reason why a change from parallel runways to crossing runways may not be possible. Other reasons are as listed in the answer to question (11). (20) The operational details of the noise sharing improvements announced in the Media Statement T3/98 were spelt out in a `Backgrounder' issued by Airservices Australia on 19 January 1998. Amongst other things, this document stated that `There may also be variations to the hours of the noise sharing modes if dictated by unusual traffic conditions...'26961(Question No. 2349)234926961Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 7 February 2001:What have been the dates, modes and substance of the consultations between the Federal, State and Territory Governments concerning ILO Convention No. 182, Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour since the Submission Report on ILO Instruments Adopted in 1999 Convention 182 concerning the Worst Forms of Child Labour; Recommendation 190 concerning the Worst Form of Child Labour 30 November 2000 was tabled on 7 December 2000.26961Abbott, Tony, MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I have written to all State and Territory governments seeking their assessment of the compliance of their jurisdictions' law and practice and their formal agreement to ratification of this Convention.This matter has also been the subject of separate correspondence between the Victorian Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon Monica Gould MP and Minister Reith the former Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business which indicated Victoria's positive attitude to ratification and the process being undertaken by the Victorian Government to determine whether their law and practice is in compliance with the Convention. 26962(Question No. 2373)237326962Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 26 February 2001:(1) In the lease arrangements for Coolangatta Airport, are there any requirements or commitments as part of the sale arrangements relating to new developments by the new owner.(2) Have those requirements or commitments been complied with by the Government and the new airport owner; if not, why not.26962Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, under the Sale Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Gold Coast Airport Ltd (GCAL), GCAL has undertaken to spend a specified amount on aeronautical capital expenditure in the first 10 years of the lease. A proportion of this is to be spent within the first five years.Under the Sale Agreement GCAL can obtain an extension of this time if the Commonwealth, as the lessor, is satisfied that the obligations were not fulfilled due to economic factors or force majeure events. (2) GCAL has complied with the development obligation of the Sale Agreement to date by providing audited annual reports. Before the end of the first five year period, an assessment will need to be undertaken by the Commonwealth to ascertain whether the commitments have been met and, if not, whether the circumstances occasioning a shortfall are justifiable under the terms of the Sale Agreement. 26962(Question No. 2441)244126962Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 March 2001:(1) Why is a toll being placed on the Western Sydney Orbital.(2) What other roads classified as National Highways have tolls.(3) Will the Western Sydney Orbital be tolled according to the length of travel on the Orbital.(4) Can he guarantee that the toll on the Western Sydney Orbital will be capped so that a flat fee applies once a certain distance has been travelled along the Orbital?(5) Has the Federal Government given any consideration to implementing a refund on the toll on the Western Sydney Orbital for local residents.(6) Will he guarantee the toll will not be above $5 at the time of completion of the Orbital.(7) Did his joint media release claim that major benefits of the Orbital include less traffic on major roads through western Sydney and less traffic on local roads.(8) Does the environmental impact statement say that the Orbital will increase traffic on some major roads including the Horsley Drive west of Ferrers Road; if so, given that the Horsley Drive is a local road which many people in the electoral division of Prospect use on a daily basis, what considerations has he given to ensuring the Horsley Drive will carry less traffic on a daily basis after completion of the Western Sydney Orbital.26962Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) It is important that the benefits to residents and businesses of western Sydney from the construction of the Western Sydney Orbital (WSO) be made available as soon as possible. The full $1.25 billion cost of the project is beyond the scope of the National Highway program. Without private funding (and a toll), the WSO could not be completed for at least 15 years. With the toll, the road is expected to open in 2007. (2) No other road classified as a National Highway has a toll.(3) and (4) Electronic tolling is proposed and although not finally decided (to be addressed in the tender process) it is likely that a toll of about 25 cents per kilometre would be charged up to a maximum of about $5 (in year 2000 dollar value)(5) No. There are alternatives for people not wanting to pay the toll.(6) The toll on the WSO is expected to be about $5 (in 2000 dollar values) for a car travelling the full 39km length of the WSO, but this will be determined through the tender process.(7) The joint Ministerial media release notes that the WSO will also provide traffic relief for motorists and residents in western Sydney by removing heavy vehicle traffic from local roads, including the Cumberland Highway, the interim National Highway route through Sydney.(8) The environmental impact statement under the heading `The Horsley Drive' (Volume 3, page 25.12) states: `Traffic volumes are increased on The Horsley Drive east of the proposal by up to 51 percent in places compared to the “do nothing” case. This is due to traffic gaining access to the proposal instead of filtering to the east through the non-motorway road network. The amount of traffic attracted to the Horsley Drive decreases further away from the proposal and is slightly reduced at Smithfield Road. Traffic volumes are also reduced between Wallgrove Road and the proposal. This is consistent with the proposal's planned function to serve as a key access to the Wetherill Park industrial zone'.