2001-06-053919REPS2723702001-06-05—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice272372723714:01:0027237Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Are you aware that, according to the preliminary report released to One.Tel creditors today, the entitlements of One.Tel workers may be at risk because the directors of the company employing them moved significant assets, including the spectrum licence and the customers, out of One.Tel Ltd in late March? Prime Minister, do you condone such behaviour in denying workers their just entitlement? If not, will you now support Labor's private member's bill that would prohibit such activity?27237Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do not deny workers their just entitlements. In fact, it has been the actions of the Treasurer in my government, my action and also, I might note, the exhortations of the Labor Premier of New South Wales that have resulted, I am pleased to see, in both Mr Keeling and Mr Rich offering substantially, as I understand it, to refund the bonuses that I do not believe they should have been paid in the first place. As to the preliminary report, I have not read it and I do not intend to adopt the extrapolations of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in relation to that. I might add that I am not aware, on my understanding of what the opposition are putting forward, that the legislation they have in mind would achieve the objectives that were outlined by the deputy leader. I would simply make the point to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that you were part of a government that had 13 years to do something about workers' entitlements and you failed miserably for those 13 years to protect any of them.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I seek leave to table the report I referred to.Leave granted.2723714:03:0027237Neville, 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 of recent decisions he has taken in relation to the direction of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority?27237Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I note the member for Hinkler's very real interest in transport matters, which he often pursues me on. Over the last five years the government has made real progress in fixing the aviation safety mess that we inherited from the member for Kingsford-Smith. Under the previous government, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and its predecessor, the CAA, were in an almost permanent state of continual conflict. In less than seven years there were four chairmen, four chief executives, six heads of safety regulation and eight ministerial changes. We have improved CASA's surveillance and enforcement capability. We are well on the way to reforming the aviation regulations. CASA has demonstrated that it is prepared to take tough action against Ansett and Qantas and others when it is needed. In addition to that, I can advise the House that the current chairman, Dr Paul Scully-Power, has asked not to be reappointed due to his other business commitments, including his appointment to the board of Austrade and the National Space Advisory Group. He has done a good job and I wish him well for the future. The government has appointed Ted Anson as the Chairman of CASA for three years from 1 July 2000. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—What aviation experience has he got?4K4Mr ANDERSON—Mr Anson is currently the Chairman of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, which is CASA's sister authority. He is very well qualified for this position. He is a calm, tough, independent minded and no-nonsense chairman. They are the qualities that I want in the chair of that organisation. The government has reappointed Mr Mick Toller as Director of Aviation Safety for a period of three years. He has shown over the last three years that he is prepared to take whatever action is necessary to protect the travelling public. He has not been cowed by controversy or by the special pleadings of interest groups. One of Mr Anson's briefs will be to consider whether CASA's existing board structure is appropriate for a safety regulator with enormous enforcement powers. Mr Anson will report to the government in the middle of next year about whether CASA should remain a statutory authority with its own board or whether it should have a new reporting arrangement along the lines of the Australian Federal Police or Australian Customs Service. I will be issuing Mr Anson with a new charter letter, an updated charter letter, after the board has had—this is very important—a series of consultative meetings with the industry, and in particular with the general aviation sector.Our measured approach to aviation reform is in stark contrast to the opportunism of the members opposite, whose only policy is to flap around from one media event to the other, dragging down the public confidence in Australia in relation to Australia's air safety record. The member for Batman's most notable contribution recently was to call for another inquiry into CASA. It is a traditional opposition tactic: when you do not know what you are talking about, you demand an inquiry. I just want to place on record that there have been more than 15 inquiries into the operation of CASA or its predecessor, the CAA, over the last 11 years. CASA's strengths and weaknesses are well known. What is needed is stability and focus, and that will be provided by the team that I have announced today.2723814:08:0027238Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, why have you involved yourself actively in just two cases where employee entitlements have been at risk following the collapse of their employer: National Textiles and One.Tel? Why haven't you pushed for 100 per cent recovery of entitlements in the more than 120 cases across Australia where employees have lost their legal entitlements? Why have you rushed to the assistance of employees of National Textiles and One.Tel but not the employees of Dolphin Garments, Kennedy Taylor, New Century Enterprises, Tutone Australia, Storetek, Creative Catering, Grenadier Coatings, Champion Forms, Scone Fresh Meats, Braybrook Manufacturing, Electruck, Furniture Australia, Hannah Sports, Lowenstein Electrical Contractors, Perry Engineering and on and on, Mr Prime Minister?27238Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The basis of the Leader of the Opposition's question is utterly wrong. He talks about two cases: One.Tel and National Textiles. He completely ignores the action taken by the government to rescue the workers of the Oakdale mining company. He completely forgets the fact that the government took very vigorous action and that I and my office were very personally involved in relation to Cobar mines. We took very vigorous action in relation to Cobar mines. Of course, we introduced for the first time ever a scheme. The Leader of the Opposition reads out a long list of companies. One company I do not think he read out was that abattoir at Scone, where—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—He did? Maybe he should send a copy of it to the Labor Premier of New South Wales, because those meat workers at Scone were denied by the New South Wales government the support that the New South Wales government was willing to give in relation to National Textiles and indeed what the New South Wales government had indicated it might do in relation to others. The reality is that this is the first government to ever introduce an entitlements scheme. The reason it was possible in some cases for people to get their full entitlements is that in those cases the state governments came to the party. In relation to all of these other cases that have occurred since 1 January last year, when the government scheme came into operation, we are willing to pay 50 per cent. We think it is right and proper that the state governments should pick up the other 50 per cent.Instead of asking questions about this in the parliament, the Leader of the Opposition should be exerting his influence on the Labor Premier of New South Wales, the Labor premiers of Queensland and Victoria and the Labor Premier of Western Australia. I will continue to exhort the Liberal Premier of South Australia to do the right thing also, because I am not impressed with the failure of the Liberal government of South Australia to come to the party either. The reality is that the only government in this country which has done something for workers' entitlements is the coalition government I lead. The lot opposite had 13 years. You saw thousands upon thousands of Australian workers go begging for their entitlements, and you did nothing to help them. You have suddenly discovered a conscience for the workers of Australia now that you are in opposition. The workers of Australia are not very impressed with that. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the list of 127 companies—114 of them since the National Textiles imbroglio—that have failed to achieve the Prime Minister's stated intention to return 100 per cent.Leave granted.2723914:13:0027239Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer please detail to the House his decision regarding the proposed merger of BHP and Billiton? Would the Treasurer also advise what reaction there has been to this and other recent foreign investment decisions?27239Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I can inform the member for La Trobe—I thank him for his question—and members of the House that yesterday under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act I gave approval, subject to conditions, to a dual listing of BHP Ltd and Billiton and a merging of their business. The merger of these two businesses will create one of the largest diversified resource groups in the world, with a market value of around $57 billion. This government believes that it is important for Australian companies to go global. We also believe that those companies can find corporate headquarters in Australia under a business tax regime and a business regime which are very conducive to investment.BHP has an icon status in Australia. It is known as the `big Australian'. We have put in place a number of conditions to ensure that it will continue to be Australian, notwithstanding that it now becomes the largest diversified resources company in the world. Among the conditions that I put in place when giving the approval were that BHP remains an Australian resident company incorporated under our Corporations Law and listed on the Australian Stock Exchange; that it is the ultimate holding company of and manages the BHP businesses currently part of the group; that the global headquarters of BHP and Billiton are located in Australia; that this is acknowledged in all significant public announcements and documents; that the chief executive officer has a principal place of residence in Australia; and that a majority of board meetings are held in Australia. These are conditions which will ensure that BHP, after it becomes the world's largest diversified resources company, continues to have its corporate headquarters in Australia.Of course, when I was making this decision I went looking for precedents. I was unable to find any because the last case of a dual listed company merger was between CRA and RTZ in December 1995, when the now member for Kingston was advising the Labor Party, and no conditions whatsoever were put as to Australian headquarters or Australian residence.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—The Socialist Left member for Melbourne interjects.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne seems to be convinced that unless he raises the Speaker's ire he is in some way not succeeding as a member.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Melbourne interjects, so I remind him of the conditions that the Labor Party imposed in relation to the dual listing of CRA and RTZ. He was then in the parliament supporting the government. They had two conditions: that one-third of the board be Australians and that CRA's allocation include Latin America. I will table that. They were the conditions on 13 December 1995. On 20 December 1995— seven days later—those two conditions were withdrawn and replaced with other conditions that had no requirements whatsoever in relation to headquarters or Australian residence. I will table both of those. 8I4Martin, Stephen, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If the member for Cunningham wishes the call, I will facilitate him.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Leader of the Opposition gets asked about the BHP-Billiton approval today: Mr Beazley, do you support the approval of the BHP-Billiton merger by the Treasurer?Answer: Well, I have always had my concerns about the Billiton-BHP merger.Question: Would your government have done anything differently?Answer: It is very difficult to tell because I am aware of the fact that when we were in government we were constantly jawboning with companies on these sorts of issues and on the things that we were doing.Can anyone imagine the Leader of the Opposition jawboning? Prolix answering maybe. And then he had one of the most prolix answers you have ever seen when he said this:It is very difficult to say exactly in which direction you would have taken it.In other words, `We wouldn't have a clue what to do about it.' The Labor Party would not have a clue what to do about it. He finishes off by saying:It is very difficult for us to tell what our policy is.That took me back to the Woodside-Shell decision. I made the decision in relation to Woodside and Shell, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition came out and attacked it immediately, and we have had this weaseling all over the place in relation to foreign investment ever since, both by him and by his leader. What have they been saying in relation to Shell and Woodside? He was asked about it on the Glen Milne program on 29 April.Milne: The government took a tough decision on Shell Woodside and the takeover there. You took several days to respond. You were accused of dithering. Were you?Beazley: No, certainly not. Look, on the, as far as Woodside is concerned, on day one we accepted the government's decision.Milne: Well, you say you accept it, but do you support it?Beazley: As I said, we accept the decision. It is over, finished, gone, out of it.Mr Speaker, they still have not announced their position in relation to Shell and Woodside. They took opportunistic attacks, led by the biggest opportunist in this parliament, the member for Hotham. The biggest opportunist in this parliament attacked the decision: he can't bring himself to support it. He weaseled all over the place in relation to BHP-Billiton. When we look at your record, there was not one condition in relation to Australian residence in the dual listing of CRA and RTZ. You do not have the wit to take a decision on anything. You have no policy. You are completely opportunistic, and you are unfit to be in government in this country.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind the Treasurer of the obligation he has to address his remarks through the chair.2724014:21:0027240Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, can you confirm that a 78-year-old veteran and ex-POW, Mr Gordon Smithers, was admitted to the Yagoona Nursing Home for respite care in May this year? Are you aware that he and his family were so distressed by his care in the Yagoona Nursing Home that after just 24 hours they had him moved to Lady Davidson Hospital? Minister, are you aware that the Yagoona Nursing Home then charged him for 12 days—$280—when he remained in the nursing home for only one day? Minister, why did it take the intervention of Mr Smithers's mates from the Liverpool branch of the RSL—who are in the Speaker's Gallery today—to remove Mr Smithers from this appalling situation?27240Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—No, I am not aware of that particular case, but I am happy to get those details from you, have it investigated and come back to you.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—I seek leave to table a letter that was sent to the minister in May on behalf of this beautiful man and his family. Leave granted.2724114:22:0027241Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the government's policy on Indonesia? Is the minister aware of any alternative views or approaches on this issue?27241Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question and recognise the interest he has in Indonesia. The member for Boothby has been to Indonesia on several occasions and as recently as about 18 months ago. It is a credit to him that he shows such interest in this issue. The House may be interested to know that it is now 271 days since the member for Kingsford-Smith asked me a question on anything, and `Danger Man' is away today. Government members interjecting—4G4Mr DOWNER—No, he has come back. This, indeed, is good news. The Australian government attaches great importance to our relationship with Indonesia. We have a constructive relationship which is based on the principle of mutual respect. Of course the relationship went through a difficult time as a result of the events in East Timor in 1999, and that was to be expected, but there has been a useful rebuilding of the relationship. The ministerial meeting which we held in Canberra in December last year and the visit to Indonesia by Mr Vaile, the Minister for Trade, with a very substantial trade delegation earlier this year underline the value we place on the relationship. It is also, I am sure, of interest to the House that our exports to Indonesia in the last year increased by 35 per cent. I do not think the House will forget that, when Indonesia was in grave economic difficulties in 1997, Australia offered support through the IMF of around $1 billion. Add to that our support for the Paris Club process of debt relief for Indonesia and the very substantial aid contribution and you can see that it is a comprehensive and successful relationship.The House knows that Indonesia is going through troubled times at the moment. We have very deliberately maintained contact with many of the key players there. The foreign minister has been on the phone to me from time to time about it. Our officials in Jakarta have kept in touch with a number of different people. It is a difficult period and we hope those problems will be resolved in a constitutional and peaceful way. Beyond that, obviously, we are not going to become involved.The second part of the honourable member's question was to ask whether there is an alternative view on how the relationship with Indonesia should be handled. The short answer is that there is not one alternative view; there are several alternative views—several different approaches from Labor's various spokespeople for foreign affairs. Uniquely, the Labor Party has several spokesmen on foreign affairs, not one. The relationship between them, I would say, is not particularly warm. I am told and I have read that the relationship between the member for Griffith and the member for Kingsford-Smith— known within the Labor Party as `Danger Man'—is particularly poisonous. I deal with the Labor Party on foreign affairs issues from time to time, and that is very apparent to me. But in relation to Indonesia, it is very interesting because the member for Griffith makes the point over and over again that a Labor government's approach to dealing with Indonesia would be a combination of Evansism, Keatingism and Hawkeism, and I suppose that means Beazleyism as well, he having been the Minister for Defence throughout all of that period. This is all wrapped together, in stark contrast to the position that the member for Kingsford-Smith takes, which is to go around, as he did in Jakarta recently, criticising the former Labor government and saying:I don't think it—being Labor's policy on Indonesia—served us well at the end of the day.On the one hand you have the member for Griffith, with experience of foreign affairs matters, articulating that Labor would continue with the Keating-Hawke approach; on the other hand you have the member for Kingsford-Smith, who is ever devious in the public comments he makes. That begs the question: where is the Leader of the Opposition in all of this? He says at a doorstop, `We're divided, and it is creative to have divisions between the chairman of the caucus committee and the spokesman on foreign affairs.' But what does the Leader of the Opposition think about the relationship with Indonesia? Is it Keatingism and Hawkeism? Is that the approach of the Leader of the Opposition, or is he going down the Brereton path and continually criticising his predecessors, including himself? All I can say is that this is not an opposition which would be worthy of government. This is not an opposition that has policies. This is not an opposition that has any sense of direction. This is not an opposition that has been anything but abominably expedient on foreign affairs issues over and over again. None of us will forget Danger Man running around there, launching an attack on the Americans, lining up with the so-called New Zealandisation of Australian foreign policy, and then one fine day out comes the Leader of the Opposition, and bang: `We are with the Americans on missile defence. Forget Danger Man. He is not to be taken seriously.' He is not to be taken seriously; nor is the Australian Labor Party.2724214:29:0027242Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, do you recall telling Radio 2GB this morning that you knew nothing about the substandard care in Yagoona Nursing Home until you saw it in the paper on 31 May? How is it that you were still not aware that I wrote to you personally on 25 May alerting you to the plight of Mr Smithers?Government members interjecting—83ZMrs IRWIN—I do not think this is a joke, Mr Speaker. This man was in Sandakan.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler will wait until the House has come to order.83ZMrs IRWIN—Would you like me to start again, Mr Speaker, or continue?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler will continue with her question.83ZMrs IRWIN—How is it that you were still not aware that I wrote to you personally on 25 May alerting you to the plight of Mr Smithers? Do you also recall saying this morning that you have no power under the act to make a decision about accreditation matters? Minister, if you have no powers and no knowledge about substandard nursing homes, what do you do?27242Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—I did ask the Table Office to let me have a copy of the letter that the member has just tabled, dated 25 May. That is last week, I think. She may or may not know that the process by which such correspondence is dealt with is that it goes straight to the department. It comes back—Opposition members interjecting—SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—I did say that my concern was always for individuals. I have said to you that I will have the case looked into and I will come back to you.2724214:32:0027242Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister outline the government's initiatives relating to cadets? Is the minister aware of other policies in this area?27242Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for his question. He is a great supporter of the cadets in his electorate—I know because he has told me about them. He has an Army unit at Merredin and a couple of naval cadet units at Esperance and Dampier. I am sure that cadet units around the country will be delighted with the announcement made by my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, Dr Nelson, of the government's support for cadets. The government is putting more money into cadets—another $6 million. We are also integrating cadets more closely with the Defence Force. We see cadets as a very important youth development program. It is also a great introduction to the military. Some of the senior people today in the Australian Defence Force got their first interest in the military through the cadets. The government is very supportive of cadets. Furthermore, in that support for cadets we have tapped into strong community support. I do commend the parliamentary secretary for the fact that we have had the Courier-Mail come out with an editorial—I have just plucked out a selection of articles—and the Advertiser came out in support of cadets. It said:The Victorian government leading the charge—that is, against cadets—asserts it is upholding an anti-gun policy. But to deny weapons training to Defence Force cadets makes about as much sense as teaching gardening without touching a plant or hairdressing without scissors.The West Australian's headline was `Value in cadet system revamped'. It said:Experience in the cadets teaches young people the value of discipline and how to work in a team. It also allows them to develop a range of skills, including leadership.To take one regional newspaper, the Bendigo Advertiser also came out with an editorial strongly supporting the government's measures. This is a long-term program which the government has put in place. It is part and parcel of the government's overhaul of defence and it was of course given priority in the government's defence white paper.I am asked sensibly whether there is any alternative policy. The only alternative and negative comment with respect to cadets is coming from senior people within the Labor Party: we have had the Premier of Tasmania, the Premier of New South Wales and the Premier of Victoria, all of whom are attacking this particular proposal, and of course the Premier of Western Australia—the home state for the member for Kalgoorlie. This should hardly come as a surprise. If you go back in time, when Whitlam was elected he abolished the cadets. When the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, was defence minister and a senior member of the previous Labor government, they downgraded cadets. When the shadow minister was asked about it, his basic response was, `The money should have been spent somewhere else in defence.'8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—That's right. On the ADF! 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham knows better than anyone else that he does not have a licence to behave in that way.WI4Mr REITH—I thank the shadow minister and his colleagues, who are all nodding and interjecting in support of him, because what they are saying is that if the Labor Party are elected they will cut into defence just as they did previously. That is very clear, because not only do they not support cadets but we have also seen in recent days their response to the question, `Where is the money coming from for roll-back?' The Leader of the Opposition was pretty clear when he was asked on Sunday. He said, `Saul Eslake has a list and you can have a look at that list.' When you look at his list, what is on it? None other than defence.So what do we have? We have the Labor Party going around quite openly saying that when it comes to funding some other programs—yet to be defined—they are going to cut defence funding. They are not just going to cut cadets of course; they have a whole range of programs. That is why you have this so-called incredible policy from the Leader of the Opposition, who says, `I'll tell you the details of my defence policy after the election.' It is the old trick back to 1993—the same old trick—and the Labor Party think the public is mug enough to fall for the same trick. This government are proud of what they have done for cadets. We will continue to support cadets. Dr Nelson has done a fantastic job supporting cadets. I know that communities around Australia will support what the government are doing, and I think it is about time the Leader of the Opposition finally committed himself to this great program for young people.2724314:38:0027243Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Minister, do you recall writing in the Australian yesterday that the $25,000 ex gratia payment for Japanese POWs or their surviving spouses is: ... not subject to any means test. It will not affect any veteran disability pension or war widow's pension. It is not taxable. It will not be counted as income or an asset for income support pensions paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs or Centrelink.Why did you fail to mention in your letter that page 205 of Budget Paper No. 2 states:The deeming rules will apply to the payment.Why has the government chosen to claw back the value of the ex gratia payment to Japanese POWs in this way when it has been able to quarantine it from the application of other tests? Why don't you do the decent thing and make the payment with no strings attached?27244Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—In answer to the honourable member's question, I was answering a question in a letter to the editor of the Australian in relation to a letter that had been written by someone regarding the $25,000 ex gratia payment by the government. It was all in the budget papers. It was quite clear—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane is warned.OT4Charles, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—And so is the member for La Trobe.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—I hope that members on the other side of the House understand that it is up to the veterans what they do with that $25,000 ex gratia payment from this government. Not all veterans would put it into an income bearing deposit account; some may spend it and others may want to go on a holiday. So I am not going to pre-empt what a veteran may do with that $25,000 payment. I remind the opposition that it was the opposition that introduced deeming on income for people on payments from the Commonwealth. The whole idea of deeming was to make sure that money that was saved by someone depositing it into a savings account could earn money to make them better off.I could help the other side of the House by encouraging former POWs to put the money into an interest bearing deposit account—if they want to—to make themselves better off. Someone, for example, on a maximum rate service pension who has less than $31,000 in a bank account—which includes the $25,000 ex gratia payment—will actually have an overall increase in income of $33.65 per fortnight. In other words, we are trying to encourage veterans to use the money—in this case, their POW ex gratia payment—to help themselves and make themselves better off. In other words, it is a benefit for those who want to save it. But to those who want to spend it I say that is up to them. It is not up to the government to decide where veterans spend the ex gratia payment that this government paid. I hope that the other side of the House continues to support this payment to ex-prisoners of war of Japan.2724414:43:0027244Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Would the minister advise the House why illegal immigrants are processed in the way that they are? What alternative policies exist to this issue?27244Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for the question that he has put to me and for his interest in this matter. Honourable members would be well aware that the way in which we deal with unlawful arrivals has not changed over a large number of years. In fact, the present method of dealing with the detention of those people who arrive in Australia unlawfully and clandestinely was public policy introduced by a former Labor government to define what in fact had been government policy over previous years to deal with what were largely stowaways. It was good public policy, and the reason for it was quite clear: it allowed a check to be made of the identities of people who arrived, largely, without documents. It allowed checks to be made as to whether or not people pose a risk with regard to health, character or security or pose a threat to Australia. It ensured that people were available for processing when they made applications and that they are available for removal if they have no right to stay in Australia. The policy of detention has not changed. It was always intended to be humane. It has never been free of difficulties—let me say that—and it has always been a situation of some delicacy because people do not like being detained, whether it is provided for by law or not. I thought it might be useful to recall the statistics between 1991 and 1995-96 when former ministers were managing detention. In 1991, 25 people escaped under Minister Hand; in 1992, there were 22; in 1993, there were 10; in 1993-94, there were 19; in 1994-95, there were 162; and in 1995-96, 11 detainees escaped. And this was when far fewer people were held in detention than we have now. Were there other incidents that one would regard as unsatisfactory? There were at that time. In May 1992, Minister Hand had to announce a security review because of the threatened safety of detainees at Port Hedland. In August 1992, detainees staged a rooftop hunger strike at Port Hedland. Five PRC nationals jumped from the roof; two sustained injuries and one was left paralysed. In late 1992, three Cambodian women at Villawood staged a hunger strike over a four-month period, bringing them close to death, which led to the minister having to promulgate regulations to enable the department to direct a physician to force-feed an asylum seeker whose life is at risk. In 1995, as I mentioned before, there was the mass break-out at Curtin detention centre in Western Australia. In June 1995, they had to tighten security at Curtin after rioting, including the taking of hostages, which resulted in the arrest of 19 detainees. In late June 1995, there was a further rooftop demonstration at Port Hedland.Detention is not easy—it never has been—but there needs to be some appreciation that some people do not like being detained and have a desire, whether there is a lawful entitlement or not, to be in the Australian community. Are there other ways of dealing with it? The only other way I have heard of dealing with it is the view that is put that you should release people as soon as they arrive—or, some might argue, that you release them after you have done some preliminary checks. I have heard that that is the way in which they do it in Sweden. I can tell you how they deal with it in Sweden. They say, `Look, when we get around to interviewing somebody, we might find out whether or not they have a health problem.' They say, `When we get around to interviewing them, we might find out whether they are a security risk or a character concern.' The point I am making is that you can say that those issues are of no consequence and that you will release people regardless of them, or you can have a view that they should be dealt with. I happen to have a view, and the government has a view, that people should be dealt with before they are released into the community. But, more importantly, this is the point that I would make: if their objective is to be in the Australian community, would they come forward later and be available for interview, for processing and for removal if they had no lawful basis to be here? Canada has recently moved to implement measures of the same sort that we use, because, when they went out to find people, to interview them, they did not come forward. If you look at what has happened in the United States of America, they have something like 11 million unlawful stayers or overstayers. If you go to the United Kingdom, they have 100,000 failed asylum seekers who essentially have gone underground. Do you think people come forward after they get a decision that is adverse and say, `Thank you very much; the game's up; I'm going home'? The fact is that the United Kingdom is now receiving something like 97,000 asylum seeker applications, three times per capita the numbers that we receive from amongst those who are in the community or those who arrive clandestinely and are detained. What are the alternatives? When I was on the immigration committee, I tested community based organisations who argued for release into the community at earlier points in time. I said to them, `Look, if we were prepared to look at this issue constructively and we were going to process people, and if some are found not to be refugees and we need to remove them, would you help to facilitate their removal—in other words, cooperate in identifying where they are, help to locate them and see that they are removed?' What do you think they said? Government member—No.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Of course. They said, `That's not our job. That's the department of immigration's job.' I can tell you that, if you have people detained, you can process them, you can do so with efficacy, and you are in a position to have available for removal those people that ought to be removed. R36Albanese, Anthony, MP0J4Mr RUDDOCK—What does Labor say about these matters? I noticed the member for Grayndler interrupting. Of course, it is difficult to know at times. I listen very carefully, and occasionally I hear Labor saying, `We still support mandatory detention.' R36Albanese, Anthony, MP0J4Mr RUDDOCK—But what I also hear now coming from the Labor Party, particularly the member for Grayndler, is that he is going to try to change Labor Party policy because he believes their policy has already shifted considerably. What you also have are the Labor unions involved in relation to these matters. PE4Beazley, Kim, MP0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I understand the Leader of the Opposition. He does not want to hear what the labour movement is saying in relation to these matters. The fact is—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The fact is that you had Leigh Hubbard of the Victorian Trades Hall Council saying he does not believe in mandatory detention; you have Sharan Burrow saying—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is well aware of the fact that he will now be recognised.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on a point of order going to the appropriateness of ministerial statements in question time. This is going on for ever, Mr Speaker. If he wants to put down a statement, that is fine—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs was asked a question about illegal immigration. He has been responding to that question for a matter of eight minutes, which, while it may be longer than is normal, is not long by historical standards in this place. The minister has the call.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Thank you for your counsel, Mr Speaker. The ACTU President, Sharan Burrow, says that mandatory detention is a crime. She wants detainees now to be paid wages and overtime for preparing their own meals and doing their own cleaning. The fact is that the union movement and the ALP have been saying to me over a period of time, `We should get tougher on visa overstayers and illegal workers.' But growing sections of the Labor Party are now saying that detention is bad policy. How do they expect that you are able to locate and remove overstayers or people who are working contrary to visa conditions if they are not detained? Do they think they can say, `Look, we've found you, and will you come tomorrow when we put you on the plane?' I think that is what they seem to expect. Is that what they expect? Is that why we have got Premier Beattie in Queensland saying, along with the rest of the Labor Party, `We should be locating people closer to metropolitan centres so that they can be closer to the support groups, but please don't give us one in Brisbane. We want tourists still coming to Brisbane, we want the extra economic benefit that comes from it, but we are not prepared to accept the consequences that result from having increased numbers of people, some of whom may not intend bona fide visits'? Let me say: mandatory detention was good public policy when you operated it and it is good public policy now. 2724714:54:0027247Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the Remuneration Tribunal's rulings that senators' and members' entitlements, including staff, facilities, printing, air fares and travel allowances, are for parliamentary and electorate duties only and not for party political business, and given that the Treasurer's media advisory for his visit to Wodonga in April said, `The Treasurer will visit the electorate of Indi on Tuesday 10th April 2001 to campaign for the Liberal Party's candidate Sophie Panopoulos,' what assurances can you give that the ongoing marginal seat tours by you, other ministers, their shadows and their staff represent legitimate parliamentary duties and not party political pre-election campaigning at taxpayer expense?27247Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Calare. Can I say to the honourable gentleman that all of the things that I do in my office as Prime Minister, and I know I can speak with great confidence in relation to the Treasurer and other senior ministers, are in accordance with longstanding practice and our understanding of the entitlements. I regard it as part of my public duty as Prime Minister of this country to visit all parts of the country. I will go on visiting all parts of the country. And I might remind the honourable gentleman that it is my almost invariable practice when I visit electorates—as the member for Forde will attest, as the member for Fairfax will attest, as the member for Wide Bay will attest—that as well as naturally being in the company of the sitting coalition member I also invite community leaders to the functions that I attend. I make a special point in those visits—UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Tell us about your visit to Paterson!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The member for Paterson? Ah, yes, I visit your seat too. It was very enjoyable. What is more—UU5Horne, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson has no reason to interject!ZD4Mr HOWARD—What is more, I have even holidayed in your electorate—I love it.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind the member for Paterson and all members of the chamber that the standing orders provide no opportunity for any member at any stage to interrupt any member who is on his feet. Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, I regard all of the visits that I have undertaken as being very much within entitlements and they are, of course, completely consonant with the sorts of visits that used to be undertaken by my predecessor and certainly by my predecessor but one. I know my immediate predecessor on one occasion went for a long time before going to a particular state, but certainly my predecessor but one undertook a great number of visits. I think it is important. And I would remind the honourable gentleman, now that he has given me the opportunity to do so, that one of the visits to which he has probably been referring is a visit I paid to Campbelltown and Camden last Thursday. I might point out to the honourable gentleman that the principal function that I attended and the occasion that I met on that particular visit was to be guest of honour at a large fundraising function for Lifeline at Macarthur, which I am very pleased to say raised a large amount of money for a wonderful community service. He also reminds me of my visit to Newcastle—KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr Andren—I do not want to interrupt the Prime Minister but—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—There are members on my right who clearly would like to hear the rest of question time outside the chamber. The member for Calare has only one facility for interrupting the Prime Minister and that is a point of order.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr Andren—There is: that I also asked about other ministers, shadows and their staff, and I wonder whether the Prime Minister might address that. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Calare will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has not concluded his answer.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I continue the answer. Also, for the information of the honourable member for Calare, I remind him that on a recent visit I paid to Newcastle I was also guest of honour at a major fundraising function to purchase a paediatric oncology unit for the John Hunter Hospital. I am informed that that particular occasion raised a record amount for a charity event within the Newcastle and Hunter district area: it raised an amount of $180,000. In the course of these visits—and I make no bones about it—of course I take the opportunity to advocate the political cause of the government. I make no apology for saying that—just as my predecessors did, just as my colleagues do, just as the Leader of the Opposition does and just as shadow ministers do. I think it is entirely appropriate. Part of our public duty is to put our political case. It is also our duty to discharge our responsibilities as prime ministers and senior ministers, and I think it verges on humbug to think there is something improper about that.2724815:00:0027248Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister outline to the House the federal government's commitment to protecting Australia's prized disease-free status for our agriculture and fisheries industries? How is the federal government backing this commitment?27248Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for his question. As a former minister for agriculture in New South Wales, he would know very well how important and how precious Australia's clean and green image, our disease-free status, is to our nation. This government has massively increased Australia's effort in relation to quarantine, an effort that had been run down by Labor: they had actually reduced services and border patrol activities in their latter years. We immediately commenced turning it around, and there are now more than two-thirds more full-time staff in border activities than when we came to office. But, in the budget handed down last month, there was another $600 million boost to Australia's quarantine services. This demonstrates very clearly this government's commitment to our nation's disease-free status. It will almost double the size of our quarantine service and also significantly boost the number of people engaged by Customs. The number of dog teams will be tripled to 98 and we will have an extra 50 X-ray machines. The number of inspections will increase dramatically, and indeed we will be moving to a 100 per cent inspection of passengers' luggage, cargo containers and, of course, mail items coming into this country.There is a very real commitment by this government to quarantine issues. We regard very highly our quarantine services and the important work that they do, and our disease-free status. It is in fact one of our most important national assets, one that the trade minister and I and others are always talking about to our international customers. Unfortunately, there are some people opposite who do not give such an important priority to quarantine issues. Indeed, there are a range of diseases—not just foot-and-mouth disease, which has attracted so much attention lately—which are of real concern to Australian industries. One, for instance, is the white spot virus in prawns. That is a disease which has potentially the same kind of devastating effects on the seafood industry as does foot-and-mouth disease on livestock. Australia's disease-free status, our freedom from white spot disease, is also an important asset to our seafood industry. I was naturally therefore concerned—indeed appalled—when last month we had the New South Wales fisheries minister, Mr Obeid, announcing that white spot disease had been discovered in Sydney Harbour. He actually went on to make comments that the prawn population was probably already being devastated by white spot virus in Sydney Harbour. Naturally, Mr Obeid's announcement caused shock waves throughout the entire seafood industry, and, indeed, concerns internationally about whether Australia's $2 billion seafood export industry was at risk. I naturally sought additional tests and asked the CSIRO to do some studies. It seems that the New South Wales minister made his announcement, to get a few headlines, on the basis of a preliminary protein test—an entirely unreliable guide to whether or not the disease is actually present. When the CSIRO did more detailed testing, it became abundantly clear that there was no evidence of white spot disease in Sydney Harbour at all. So we had the New South Wales minister undermining the credibility of the clean and green image of Australia by his attempting to get a cheap headline, rushing around doing an Aquilina to get a cheap headline, caring nothing about the damage to the reputation of our multimillion-dollar seafood export industry. I am pleased to report to the House that there is no evidence of white spot disease in Sydney Harbour nor, for that matter, anywhere else in Australia. It is absolutely disgraceful that we have a state Labor minister rushing around trying to damage our disease-free reputation.I might add one other thing: his action has undermined Australia's tough new quarantine laws in relation to prawn imports. How can we sustain these high standards and demanding testing regimes if we have one of our own state fisheries ministers going around telling the world that we have got the disease that we are trying to keep out of the country? I think it is high time Mr Obeid apologised to the fishing industry. The shadow minister opposite should call him into line and give him the Bracks treatment on barley: pull him into line and make sure that we have a situation in Australia where all people regard highly our disease-free status and are determined to maintain our good quarantine status.2724915:06:0027249Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Does the minister recall his claim yesterday that government schools get an estimated $238 million in this year's budget? Minister, is it correct that this figure includes $144 million because the government has finally abolished the enrolment benchmark adjustment, $34 million so that Labor's Jobs Pathways program is maintained at its current level, and $27 million which the minister claims for literacy but which the budget shows at zero cost? Minister, isn't it a fact that the genuine increases for public school funding amount to $33 million over four years, or $4 per child per year? Could the minister explain why his old school should get an extra $576 per student when public schools get only $4?27249Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—There is always such a long wait for questions from the member for Dobell that, when they finally arrive, it is a great disappointment because they always have such an insubstantial basis. I will just go through that question point by point—that is the easiest way. This government is of course investing massively in Australian schooling. Government schools in this budget for the coming year will receive some $669 million more than they received under Labor in Labor's last year of office. The member for Dobell did not get it quite right, but the new measures in the budget deliver to government schools some $238 million, which is 87 per cent of the total money flowing from the measures in the budget; 87 per cent flows to government schools.MG4Lee, Michael, MPBT4Dr KEMP—He raises the enrolment benchmark adjustment. It is not true that the government has abolished the enrolment benchmark adjustment. Unlike the Labor Party, which intends to return that money largely to the New South Wales Treasury and to other state treasuries, we took the view that it was important that that money actually flowed to government schools. And that money will be invested in improving science programs, technology programs, mathematics programs and innovation in government schools. The Labor Party's policy of abolishing the EBA simply means that state treasuries will be able in the future, as they have in the past, to put savings they make from the drift to non-government schools back into the consolidated revenue of the state budget, without any guarantee whatsoever that that money will flow to government schools. The difference between us and the Labor Party on EBA policy is that we intend to make sure that that money gets into government schools, where it can improve facilities for government students. The literacy money is simply embodied already in the forward estimates. That is why it appears as zero in the measures. There is nothing unusual about that; that is standard budgetary practice. The member for Dobell also refers to the government's funding system for non-government schools. That is a system which of course delivers funding on the basis of a needs index, which, in many ways, one has to say, is somewhat similar to the index that the Labor Party used to distribute funding under its disadvantaged schools policy; it accepted that an SES type index was an appropriate index of need. We have put into place that index which delivers the greatest funding per student for the neediest schools and delivers the least funding to schools serving the wealthiest community. For example, Shore Grammar in Sydney will receive by 2004 some $178 extra out of the billions of dollars that flow through this program to needy schools, and SCEGGS Redlands will get about $20 extra.The irony of the policy of the Leader of the Opposition is that, when he takes funding away from his arbitrary hit list of schools—a very unjust and unfair grouping of schools based on a discredited index, the ERI—those schools that will lose least will be the schools serving the wealthiest communities. The schools from which the Leader of the Opposition will take most will be those schools that can least afford it—schools where both parents of students work, struggling to provide an education for their children. For example, the Warwick School on the Darling Downs will lose some $3,000 per student. It is a small community school. SCEGGS Redlands will lose $20 as a result of the Leader of the Opposition's policy, but a community school on the Darling Downs will lose $3,000.The injustice of this policy shows the lazy attitude of the Leader of the Opposition to develop policies. He was not even interested to compile a list of the schools serving the wealthiest communities. From a list of some 67 schools serving the wealthiest communities in Australia, only 23 are on the Leader of the Opposition's list. The rest on the Leader of the Opposition's list do not even fall within that category, because he could not be bothered to do the work. He is too lazy to do the policy work, so he comes up with a morally bankrupt policy which is going to be very unjust and will take most money away from those parents who can least afford it and take least away from the wealthiest in the community. This government is determined to give fair funding and quality education to all Australians, and that is what our funding policies do. We totally reject the unfairnesses and injustices in the opposition's approach.2725015:13:0027250Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Would the minister inform the House what the government is doing to help those men and women who are suffering hardship as a result of the collapse of HIH, like so many in my electorate of McEwen? Minister, can you advise the House of any specific measures the government has undertaken to help people who have lost their income due to the collapse and who need immediate help?27250Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—To the member for McEwen: thank you for the question. I know that the member for McEwen is one of a number of members who have raised significant issues with the government in relation to the collapse of HIH. The government has today announced that the total of its package of support is $640 million over the next four years, which is fully accounted for in the budget. That money will be added to by payments that we can send to those who are on salary continuance insurance and other forms of insurance before then. In fact, we anticipate that the first cheques will be sent out this Friday to those people who had salary continuance insurance and disability insurance, and that is going to provide them with substantial relief as soon as possible. I will be introducing into the parliament an appropriation bill to account for the $640 million and we would require the parliament to pass that as quickly as possible so that substantial funds can start flowing from 1 July. We will be looking for the support of the Labor Party in expediting the passage of that legislation through this place. I can also add that the work of the HIH Claims Support company, which has been set up by the Insurance Council, is already well under way, and I can advise the House of the appointment of Dallas Booth as the Chief Executive of HCS and that Mr Dick Warburton has agreed to be the Chairman of HCS. There will be an appeals mechanism put in place. For anyone who does not meet the criteria we have established for the hardship support package, there is an appeals package process that we have put in place. That appeals process is going to be chaired by Bill McLennan, who was the head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and he will have a panel that will assess some of the anomalies in the criteria for the package.More than 5,000 people have contacted the HIH hardship hotline following an extensive education program through the media where we have tried to advise as many claimants as possible of the support that the Commonwealth government is providing. In effect, this is an act of compassion from one part of the Australian community to the other. It is very important that people recognise that this is not a precedent for financial services collapses. It is an act of hardship support to help those people who have been hardest hit by the collapse of Australia's second largest general insurer. It is the act of a compassionate community and it is the act of a compassionate government.2725115:17:0027251Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and it follows the answer that he gave just a moment or two ago when he seemed to suggest that the category 1 schools were not obviously wealthy. Does the minister recall his letter published in the Australian on Tuesday, 3 April, in which he finally admits that some of the category 1 schools are `exceptionally resourced and serving obviously wealthy communities'? Minister, exactly how many of the 58 category 1 schools do you now admit are `exceptionally resourced'? Minister, how can you say that your system is fair when the 58 category 1 schools will get an average increase of more than $1,000 per student per year, five times more than the poorest 86 category 12 private schools that only get an average of $182 per student per year?27251Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—There is something almost pathetic about the reliance of the Leader of the Opposition on the categories of the education resources index. You would think that he would have followed the analysis and demolition of the education resources index over the last few years. There have been several reports on this. He could have had his staff look at these reports.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPBT4Dr KEMP—He just says it's—PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call and will be heard in silence.BT4Dr KEMP—The Leader of the Opposition has just stated—let us just put this in the Hansard on the record—that the ERI is still retained for 70 per cent of the schools. That is absolutely false.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPBT4Dr KEMP—That is absolutely false. The ERI, which Labor used, that unjust, inequitable index which finally lost the support of the entire non-government sector—the Catholic school systems were very keen to see it abolished—MG4Lee, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell!BT4Dr KEMP—It shows you the Labor Party has not got the slightest grasp of what has happened. The Catholic—MG4Lee, Michael, MPBT4Dr KEMP—The National Catholic Education Commission was one of the strongest supporters of the government in getting rid of that index, the ERI. The Catholic schools are not funded according to the education resources index; they are funded at equivalent level 96 to the SES.MG4Lee, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell is warned!BT4Dr KEMP—They are funded on a proportion of total government school costs, but they are not funded according to the education resources index. So that index has been abandoned by every group, every section, of the non-government schools that was subject to it. The reason that it has been abandoned is that there was an analysis of this index over several years which showed that it was totally flawed, and the government received a report from KPMG which indicated that it was a completely unsatisfactory index to judge the need of schools. What the Leader of the Opposition has done, in developing his hit-list of schools— his scapegoat schools—is to retain one category, category 1, from this utterly discredited index, and it was discredited because when you look at the schools grouped in any category there was no obvious rationale for that grouping. That category 1 groups together, as I said in my previous answer, some schools that obviously serve very wealthy communities and they get very little—83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—Which ones?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lalor!BT4Dr KEMP—I just named some—SCEGGS Redlands, for example, and Shore, who get very little under our index. And some schools, at the other extreme, are just community schools which have an SES index which indicates that the parents have a level of resources below that of the Catholic parish schools. The Leader of the Opposition has been so lazy in his policy work that he has not even bothered to look at what the list of wealthiest schools in Australia might look like. What he has put together is an arbitrary list drawn from a totally discredited system. It is no wonder that parents of students at these schools are angry. Many of these schools, of course, are in Labor marginal seats, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the anger of these parents will become particularly clear to the Leader of the Opposition as we move towards the election campaign. I know that the member for Melbourne Ports is worried because he has six of these schools in his electorate. The member for Isaacs must be very worried; she should go to the Leader of the Opposition and tell him whether she thinks that Mentone Grammar and Mentone Girls Grammar are rich schools serving rich communities. I am sure that those communities do not believe that that is the case, and those schools have students supported by parents who are working very hard to send them there. The Leader of the Opposition is totally out of touch. He has adopted this policy for one reason and one reason only: he has to placate the extremists of the Australian Education Union, who want all funding to non-government schools abolished. Because he is not prepared to do that, he has decided to offer them a list of scapegoats. He has put forward this hit list, a very unjust list which will impact very unfairly on middle income families and parents and on community schools. It shows his utter unfitness to lead the government of this country.2725215:24:0027252Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. I ask the minister: would she advise the House of any recent government initiatives aimed at improving the capacity of small rural aged care homes, including those in south-west Victoria, to offer quality care to older Australians who are in need of care?RH4Kerr, Duncan, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison!83LGillard, Julia, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lalor!27252Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—I thank the member for Wannon for his question, because I know of his very real concern for older Australians in need of care in his own electorate. 83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—He was going to send you a letter but he knew—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lalor is warned.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—I am very pleased to tell the House about the new system of viability funding for small rural and remote homes, which do not have access to the same capital funding that larger homes in metropolitan areas have. Under the reforms, we introduced the viability funding payment to small homes, and some 211 homes had been receiving some $6 million of funding annually. In the budget for this current financial year, $20.1 million over four years was added to that to enable more homes to receive viability funding, and I am sure the member for Wannon will be pleased to know that the number of homes receiving viability funding in his electorate will go from five to 24. I also would think that the member for Capricornia would feel very pleased that, under the new system with over 500 homes receiving viability funding, in her electorate the Pioneers Hostel, with 29 places, will receive viability funding of $8.95 per day and will receive $94,736 per annum in a full year for 100 per cent occupancy. In addition to that, it is important to say that we have introduced a new and simpler formula. We are now using the ARIA measure, the accessibility/remoteness index of Australia, which the ABS is adopting. That will be a major concern for points. The size of the home is also important and whether or not the home caters for 50 per cent or more residents who have special needs—that includes people of non-English-speaking backgrounds, veterans, Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. The other important point to make about viability funding is that previously people had to apply to get it. In consulting with the industry, we have changed those rules so that now it will be paid automatically. Once a home reaches the criteria, it will be paid automatically. Because it was money in this financial year's budget, it will be paid retrospectively to 1 January 2001.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Personal Explanations2725315:28:0027253Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I do indeed.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—He may proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I claim to have been misrepresented by the Minister for Defence when he suggested in the course of his remarks that I had endorsed a proposition by Saul Eslake that the Defence budget be cut. I have transcripts of the only two occasions on which I have spoken in public on the subject of Saul Eslake's quotes, and I certainly do not dispute the fact that from $25 billion you can find a few savings. But I have said this: I do not agree with all of Saul Eslake's suggestions as to how Labor might do it—that is one quote—and, as was pointed out by Saul Eslake, I do not agree with the particular programs he identified. So I do not know how the Minister for Defence managed to get that particular proposition out of them.15:29:0027253Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Cunningham claim to have been misrepresented?8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN—Yes, Mr Speaker, on three occasions.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham may proceed.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN—I was misrepresented on three occasions today by the Minister for Defence. In respect of cadets, he indicated that I had not supported that concept; that is untrue. What I in fact said was that I did support it, but I said that the crisis in ADF personnel needed to be addressed as a priority in line with— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham knows that he cannot indicate any argument in his favour.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN—the ANAO report last week. Secondly, he continues to peddle the mistruth that I have indicated, and that Labor has indicated, that our policy on defence will be released after the election. Again, that is not so. I have said that in this place before. Mr Speaker, I understand that you have made some comments about ministers who continue to peddle that sort of nonsense in the place. And, thirdly, following on from the personal explanation of the Leader of the Opposition, I too have never, ever said that the Defence budget or the white paper funding would be cut under a Labor government. In fact, what both the Leader of the Opposition and I have said on a number of occasions is that the money is about right. Questions Without Notice272542725415:30:0027254Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—Mr Speaker, I would like to add to an answer that I gave to a question from the member for Fowler.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister may proceed.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—I have now read the letter that was tabled in the parliament. The member for Fowler was concerned about the fact that the gentleman concerned, Mr Smithers, had received a bill for 12 days when he had spent only two days there. She asked me to confer with my colleague the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and also with the Minister for Community Services to see what the situation was. Obviously, as I sit next to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, I was able to confer with him during question time. With regard to former prisoners of war, all fees for high level care are paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The department will take that issue up, but I will investigate it as well and confer with the minister, as I said I would. For the record, the letter was received in our office on 30 May and properly recorded. It was sent to the department for action on 31 May and logged in the department on 1 June, which is the perfectly normal way that correspondence is dealt with.Questions to the Speaker272542725415:31:0027254Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question of you. It is a year today since I put question No. 1600 on the Notice Paper to the Minister for Aged Care. Under standing order 150, I would be very grateful for your assistance in writing to the minister regarding an answer to that question.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Would members on my left like the standing orders to be reinforced in the normal way?Personal Explanations2725415:32:0027254Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I claim to have been misrepresented by the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition. I simply refute those by referring to two quotes. The first quote is from an interview with Laurie Oakes on the Sunday program, as follows:Now, I don't agree with all of Saul Eslake's suggestions—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House must indicate where he has been misrepresented.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I have been misrepresented because the Leader of the Opposition said—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will recognise the Manager of Opposition Business, but I believe that was the point he was going to raise and I was listening to the Leader of the House's explanation. The Leader of the House must indicate where he has been misrepresented. WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—He misrepresented me by saying that I had failed to properly state his position—in other words, that I had misled people in my answer. To refute that, I rely on two quotes, one of which was in part referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, but he left out the second part when he said—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It has been your constant practice, not to our delight, to not allow our members to read quotes—merely to say, `X is not true, and I have been misrepresented.' You have not allowed our members to read such quotes, particularly by people other than themselves, into the Hansard. This would be, I think, a precedent which we might appreciate but that would not be consistent with the past.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: the misrepresentation point was made by the Leader of the Opposition. He quoted himself in support of his claim, but the fact is he did not read out the full quote. I simply want to do so, because it substantiates the claims that I made during question time—that is all.PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is not helping the chair.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—To help the chair, the word `additional' was, but he points out that when people are putting out new outlays of something like $25 billion over four years there is plenty of ice for an opposition to skate on, which is the very point I was making during question time.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Saul Eslake on the 7.30 Report referred to Defence. I did want to debate it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will resume his seat.Questions to the Speaker272552725515:35:0027255McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00— Mr Speaker, on 21 June 2000 I asked question No. 1657 of the Treasurer. Could I ask that you write to the Treasurer and ask for the reasons for the delay in replying?27255SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will. I am not sure that I indicated to the member for Canberra that I would take the action that she asked for under the standing orders, and I will do the same thing for the member for Stirling.Personal Explanations2725515:35:0027255Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Yes, most grievously.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson may proceed.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—During question time, the Prime Minister claimed, in response to a question from the member for Calare, that he invited community leaders to functions when he visited an electorate. On his recent visit to Maitland to open a taxpayer funded basketball court—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson must indicate where he personally has been misrepresented.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—The point is that the Prime Minister did not invite the federal member, the state member, the deputy mayor or a former mayor.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson will resume his seat! That is an abuse of a personal explanation. If the member for Paterson is confused about personal explanations, I will happily give him an opportunity to discuss it with me in my office.Questions to the Speaker272552725515:36:0027255Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. You will recall yesterday ruling out of order a question that I asked of the Minister for Aged Care on the basis that it implied a link between a donation to the Liberal Party and a policy decision. Today, once again in question time, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs implied that the basis of the ALP's education policy was due to a link with the Australian Education Union, something that he does repeatedly in question time—time after time. Could you please explain the distinction between why my question was out of order and why his answers are in order? 27256SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I refer the member for Grayndler to the comments made by the Leader of the House in his response to the dissent from my ruling yesterday, where the Leader of the House made it perfectly clear not only that the question contained imputations but that standing order 153 simply states that questions may not be asked which may reflect on or are critical of the character or conduct of other persons whose conduct may only be challenged in a substantive motion. In fact, I maintained then, as I do now, that the question identified the proprietor of the nursing home, or she or he could reasonably have been identified through the question, and for that reason I had ruled it out of order. I do not believe that in the instance cited by the member for Grayndler there was the same direct link to an individual.Personal Explanations2725615:38:0027256Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—The Minister for Foreign Affairs said in question time today that I had said in a conference in Jakarta that I viewed the future of the Australia-Indonesia relationship under a Labor government as a combination of Evansism, Keatingism and Hawkeism. Mr Speaker, that is untrue. What I said at that Chatham House conference, in response to a question about how a Labor government would handle Australia's relationship with Asia in general, was:Under Labor Australia would embark upon a policy of comprehensive regional engagement in Asia—Evansism, Hawkeism, Keatingism—in contrast to five years of disengagement from Asia under Howard.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Griffith has now gone beyond the point at which he was misrepresented—83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—My remarks were not in response to questions about the future of the Canberra-Jakarta relationship.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—and has in fact had the opportunity to clear the misrepresentation.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—The minister has misrepresented my remarks to the House.Documents272562725610000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit reports Nos 39 to 45 of 2000-2001 entitled No. 39—Performance audit— information and technology in Centrelink— Centrelink; No. 40—Performance audit— Management of the Adult Migrant English Program contracts—Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; No. 41— Performance audit—Causes and consequences of personnel postings in the Australian Defence Force—Department of Defence; No. 42 Performance audit—Bank prudential supervision—Australian Prudential Regulation Authority; No. 43—Performance audit—Performance information for Commonwealth financial assistance under the Natural Heritage Trust—Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—Department of the Environment and Heritage; No. 44—Performance audit—Information technology in the Department of Veterans' Affairs—Department of Veterans' Affairs; and No. 45—Performance audit—Management of fraud control—Department of Family and Community Services.Ordered the reports be printed.Miscellaneous2725610000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—For the information of honourable members I present a congratulatory message relating to the Centenary of Federation which has been received from the National Council of the Slovak Republic.Documents2725727257Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Matters of Public Importance27257272570000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Government to put in place a comprehensive policy which guarantees employees 100 per cent payment of entitlements in the event of company failure.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—15:41:0027257Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—There is in this country now a profound sense of unfairness in our public affairs. There is a strong belief amongst ordinary Australians that the wealthy people in this country are held to be unaccountable in certain circumstances in the management of companies and are allowed a government-free attitude on tax breaks that are being assumed, illegitimately, in a whole range of areas in relation to the taxation act; that when there is a crisis affecting ordinary Australians, like that which has occurred with HIH, governments are slow off the mark to take a look at their interests and to protect them; and that when ordinary Australians find themselves as employees in a firm which has collapsed, often these days having collapsed in a way that has shifted assets by which their entitlements might be paid out of that company, their interests are not looked after, though many of them who have been working for those companies often for 20 or 30 years are absolutely reliant on those entitlements if they are going to be able to pay off mortgages or provide for a reasonable retirement subsequent to that or for their retraining, given that the circumstances in which they frequently find themselves are not likely to produce for themselves an opportunity for full-time employment again.There is a sense in this country now that we are egalitarian only in spirit and not in practice. It has to be said that the distribution of wealth in this society amply demonstrates that that is the case. We are one of the least equal societies now in the industrialised world, and we ought not to be proud of that. It is an extraordinary thing to say that parts of what we always identify as the old world—nations like France and Germany and the Scandinavian nations—are far more egalitarian in practical terms than we are and that they sustain a concern for what happens to ordinary Frenchmen, ordinary Scandinavians and ordinary Germans as a routine matter in their public affairs, which here in this country, because of the attitudes of the government, are matters of debate and ultimately unsuccessful conclusion as far as ordinary Australians are concerned.I am getting heartily sick of what I call the Prime Minister's quarterly statements. I have been putting up with them now for five years. The quarterly statements go along these lines. The banks ought to be doing something for ordinary depositors and for the pensioners of this society. It comes every time the bank profits are put out that there is a responsibility on corporate Australia to take cognisance of the concerns of ordinary citizens, particularly those on social security payments and the like. We get a quarterly statement and no action. Whenever there is a disaster like that which we have seen with One.Tel recently we get a statement from the Prime Minister about how urgent it is to act on these matters.In this case he said that there ought to be a piece of legislation which reaches into the structure of this company and seizes the illegitimate payouts that former directors obtained from it. On the record so far, do not expect any action soon.When the Prime Minister talks about mutual obligation, he imposes massive breaching liabilities on social security recipients in this country and says, `On the other hand, we are going to do something about taxation matters.' Massive tax avoidance—now identified frequently in the press—awaiting for dealing with it some amendments of part IVA of the tax act, finds a situation where, after two years, not a single piece of draft legislation has been produced on it. The Prime Minister cries crocodile tears over what has happened with HIH. His minister has had sitting on his desk for two years now a regulatory arrangement for the insurance industry which is yet to emerge in legislation in this place. I could open a book on when the legislation relating to illegitimate payouts to former company directors who falsely obtained bonuses will make an appearance within this House. Might I suggest it will not be before the next election. There is statement after statement on the obligations of the big end of town from the Prime Minister and no action. There has been no action whatsoever. We on this side of the House always compare and contrast that with what happens to people on social security benefits who are now breached as a routine matter. There is a raft of people in middle Australia who are not social security beneficiaries but who, as a result of clever manipulation by directors of some companies, may well find themselves placed in that situation. They have been taxpayers and wage earners virtually all of their lives. They are trying to sustain families but they find themselves in a situation where, through no fault of their own, that thing which would sustain them in reasonable comfort while they seek another job is actually denied them by the behaviour of those companies. They are totally reliant upon the development of a decent scheme to protect their entitlements, to protect their situation.Whenever we raise this in the House, this government of five years standing now—a lengthy period of office in Australian historical tradition—say to us, `Well, why didn't you do something in your 13 years?' I might remind the government that they have the responsibility to deal with the situation here and now. Beyond that, of course, this is the type of practice that was indulged in, with the approval of the government, by Patrick Partners in the MUA dispute when we saw the clever manipulation of company arrangements: assets shifted out of the vehicle which employed the employees of those companies, therefore rendering their entitlements vulnerable in any bankruptcy situation. This practice is becoming ubiquitous now, thus creating more threat to the entitlements of people who are under threat. The work forces of these companies, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a situation where their entitlements have disappeared. This is now becoming more and more ubiquitous, more and more demanding of action by government on a number of fronts. One of those fronts is the legal arrangements which permit this to happen. We had a private member's bill in this place that dealt with this area. It does seem, from preliminary reports, that there may have been some development in that in regard to the one that we are discussing right now. But we put the propositions up; it is our policy. The government has repeatedly refused to act on it. Another measure would involve putting in place a legislated scheme to guarantee 100 per cent of workers' entitlements. Again the government, when questioned on this in this place, say, `If only you could persuade the Labor premiers to pay their side of the arrangement that we put to them, it would be fine for workers in the circumstances which you outline.' It would not. Even if the state governments signed up to this taxpayer funded operation, the chances of anybody, particularly any long-serving employee, getting access to 100 per cent of their entitlements are remote indeed. It is capped at $20,000 overall. It pays out, effectively, under that cap—though there are different payment schedules for different particular entitlements that have gone unpaid—about 20 cents in the dollar. So the best they could anticipate with the state governments coming in would be 40 cents in the dollar. This is not the 100 per cent entitlement that the workers were able to obtain in the case of National Textiles. The universal application of this system will still leave National Textiles unique as the only company whose workers received a payout like that. Again it was promised that this would be a legislated scheme and that the legislation would be in place by 1 January 2000. There is no legislation—none. It is an administrative scheme that guarantees the workers nothing because it is subject to government direction. The scheme guidelines state in paragraph 17.2: While the Commonwealth and the States and the Territories, where they participate, will normally provide funds, they are not bound to do so either generally or in any individual case.There is no binding arrangement as far as that is concerned. There is also no funding for this beyond 30 June 2003. There is no assumption, therefore, that this is a continuing arrangement. We now have another budget brought down with forward estimates out to four years. There is ample opportunity, therefore, and indeed an obligation on the government to keep pursuing the scheme—and this, for all intents and purposes, if you listen to what the Prime Minister and others have to say, is a scheme that will be there forever. In fact, the scheme will take us a bit beyond the next election, and that is all it is meant to do. It is meant to provide a fig leaf for this government, like the Prime Minister's unacted upon statements in regard to the banks; like the Prime Minister's unacted upon statements in regard to tax avoidance; like the Prime Minister's unacted upon statements in regard to doing something about properly regulating the insurance system in the states. Those schemes are there for temporary purposes—to skate through a 24-hour or 48-hour news cycle; not for implementation, not wanted after the next election should he be re-elected to office.Then the government lectures us on what an appalling thing it is that we would impose the burden on the companies of Australia for sustaining the entitlements of the workers they employ. `Oh no,' says the government, `this should be a burden on the taxpayers.' Fair dinkum! It is no wonder they have not done a 100 per cent payout of entitlements. The taxpayers who constitute the workers who are at risk are obliged to pay the insurance, effectively, for themselves via the taxation system. What are we dealing with here? In moments of honesty, for example during the National Textiles case, we saw the Treasurer say this on whether employers should contribute:Let's call a spade a spade. Who let them, the employees, down? The company ... Now, there is somebody that's liable for this payment. It's the company, and the company let the employees down. There's an important thing that we have to ensure here is, we make the message clear to employers that this is not going to become an ordinary course of action. They can't walk away from their liabilities. The taxpayer is not going to pick up all the liabilities of the company directors.No, indeed they should not, with the exception of small business, where there are some difficulties in that regard. For big business in this country, for large companies, why on earth should they not be responsible for an insurance arrangement to be made for employees? Our policy on this is to give employees that comfort. Our policy is to protect the workers of this country who find themselves victims of these circumstances: to protect their superannuation arrangements by obliging companies to report them every three months and not to be able to hold the payments back, spend them in their moments of extremity and then leave them 12 months short; to protect them by changing the legislation to stop the Patrick type operations which enable them to pass employees out of companies in which there lie some assets; and to protect them by putting in place an insurance scheme that guarantees 100 per cent of their position.Would we be unique if we did this? No, we would not. Who would we join? We would join the United Kingdom, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. We would be joining them in something a bit more than a gesture. We would be joining them in a practical measure to ensure that workers, who are dependent upon their entitlements to sustain a decent standard of living and a decent life, would be assured that they would enjoy that, no matter what the manipulations of their employers. It is perfectly appropriate, when you are setting up a general insurance scheme for the workers of this country, to expect it to fall on the employers of this country, particularly when it falls so lightly. A decent insurance scheme can be afforded from a 0.1 per cent addition to the superannuation guarantee charge—a 0.1 addition for the security of middle Australia, a 0.1 addition for ensuring that middle Australian families are not going to suffer by having their houses ripped off them when their employers go broke and they are no longer able to sustain access to those entitlements. It is a pretty good idea. We have had it out there for two years and the government should take it up. (Time expired)15:56:0027260Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—By the Leader of the Opposition's usual histrionic standards, this was a particularly passionless speech, delivered to an unusually inert backbench. Not even the Leader of the Opposition could pretend that this government has failed in this area. This is the first and the only government in 100 years to put in place a scheme to protect employee entitlements. In 13 years under the prime ministerships of Mr Hawke and Mr Keating, when the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were senior ministers, there was no scheme. In none of the five Labor states currently governed by the friends and colleagues of the Leader of the Opposition is there a scheme to protect employee entitlements. Just cast your mind back to the massive corporate collapses of the 1980s and the early 1990s: the State Bank of South Australia, Qintex, Bond Corporation, Tricontinental and Pyramid. Many of these corporate collapses had Labor fingerprints all over them, and there was no scheme to protect employee entitlements. Think back to the worst recession in 60 years when hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs through the bankruptcy of their companies. In those days, under the government of members opposite, there was no scheme for the protection of employee entitlements.On this subject, the Howard-Costello government has been an absolute model of compassion and fairness. We have uniquely been a model of compassion and fairness among all the governments that this country has ever had. Let me explain exactly what this government has done. We put in place an employee entitlement safety net scheme. This scheme covers unpaid entitlements of wages for up to 27 weeks in the event of a corporate collapse. It covers up to four weeks unpaid holiday leave, up to four weeks unpaid wages, up to four weeks unpaid redundancy, up to five weeks pay in lieu of notice and up to 12 weeks long service leave. That is 27 weeks of pay, unpaid by employers, that would be covered by the scheme. This is a good scheme. It is the only scheme that has ever been put in place. It is certainly the best scheme on offer.The best thing that the Leader of the Opposition could do if he wished to help the workers of this country whose companies may be in trouble would be to tell his friends and colleagues running five states of Australia that they should back the scheme. Instead, the Leader of the Opposition is proposing something different: he does not want people to back the scheme that is in place; he wants people to do something entirely different. He wants the two birds in the bush, so to speak, rather than the bird in the hand.What the Leader of the Opposition is proposing is a levy of 0.1 per cent of payroll on every business in this country. He is proposing a new payroll tax on every business in this country. That is what he is proposing—a new payroll tax, a jobs destroying payroll tax, on every business in this country. It is precisely because this is a jobs destroying tax that the Leader of the Opposition's former adviser said exactly that in a memo to the Leader of the Opposition leaked to a television program just last year. Labor's own advisers know that what the Leader of the Opposition is proposing is a jobs destroying payroll tax on every business in this country. It is not just that—it is simply a tax that would not work in practice. What happens to businesses that do not pay this particular levy and go under? Who would pay workers' entitlements then? Would it be the fund or would it be the government? Would it be the taxpayer? What would happen in the case of businesses that go under with unpaid liabilities and it turns out that the fund cannot afford to pay and we have unfunded liabilities under the Leader of the Opposition's scheme? Who would pay then? Would other funds be forced to pay? If so, has the Leader of the Opposition consulted with the insurance industry on this, or would the government pay? The Leader of the Opposition's scheme is riddled with technical difficulties, but it faces more fundamental problems than that. Never mind that the Leader of the Opposition's new payroll tax means a $500 a year additional tax burden on half a million small businesses; never mind that the Leader of the Opposition's new payroll tax amounts to a $250 million gift to the insurance industry of this country to solve a problem which this government estimates is costing at the moment some $50 million. At least I suppose I should give this to the Leader of the Opposition: the scheme as originally proposed by him did at least maintain this sacred principle that we heard from him again today, that employee entitlements must only and always be paid by employers and that taxpayers must never have to bear the burden of meeting employee entitlements. That was the position up until last night, and then what happened? Last night, the shadow minister for industrial relations, the member for Brisbane, goes on television, on Lateline, and says, `In fact, everything that the Leader of the Opposition has been saying about employers meeting the cost of these entitlements isn't quite right. There is a catch to all this.' He says:... the Commonwealth will pick up the costs associated with small-business employers.... ... ...... that'll be met by the Government.We're talking here about a shared contribution from the Government looking after small business employees—and the top end of town looking after their employees. So the situation is that we have one policy from the Leader of the Opposition, which is amended on the run by a new policy from the shadow minister for industrial relations. If the shadow minister for industrial relations is to be taken seriously, if this actually represents Labor's real policy, this is a $50 million cost that would be borne by the taxpayers of this country—more than the total cost that is being borne by the taxpayers of this country under the government's scheme. It is $50 million being borne by the taxpayers of this country just to fund a relatively small proportion of the Leader of the Opposition's scheme. This is a classic case of policy of the run. It is a classic case of members opposite not having done their homework. It is a classic case of members opposite not knowing what they are really proposing, and saying and doing anything if they think it is going to score some cheap political points against this government.I will say this much for the member for Brisbane: at least he did not believe it was undignified to answer a question about his policy. At least he did not resort to the ultimate humiliation of having to get out of a question about something that was an important issue that the Australian people deserved to have an answer to by simply saying that he had too much dignity, too much pomposity, to answer the question.The fact of the matter is this: it is time for the Leader of the Opposition to finally show a bit of leadership on this subject. He needs to say exactly what his policy is. He needs to say why he has been rolled on this by the shadow minister for industrial relations. The Leader of the Opposition has had a lesson in leadership this week. If he is looking for an example of a bit of leadership on his own side, here is one: the member for Kingsford-Smith, the shadow minister for foreign affairs, when confronted by the example of the member for Griffith running around attempting to outdo the shadow minister for foreign affairs in being obsequious to foreign governments, actually had the guts to stand up and publicly rebuke the member for Griffith. But the Leader of the Opposition does not have the guts, does not have the ticker, does not have the intestinal fortitude to rebuke the member for Brisbane for suddenly amending Labor's policy on the run just last night. Why did workers at a place like One.Tel have a problem with their entitlements? It is quite interesting: workers at One.Tel lacked redundancy entitlements because they were on common law contracts. This government supports awards under the Workplace Relations Act, collective agreements under the Workplace Relations Act, and Australian workplace agreements under the Workplace Relations Act. The fact is that the only individual agreement that the Leader of the Opposition supports is a common law agreement. It was precisely the fact that workers at One.Tel were on common law agreements, and not on Australian workplace agreements subject to a no disadvantage test, which meant that they lacked redundancy entitlements.The workers at One.Tel and the workers all around this country who are enjoying higher wages and better conditions under Australian workplace agreements need to know that the Leader of the Opposition wants to rip them off workplace agreements and wants to send them back to common law agreements, which are not nearly as good as the Rolls Royce agreements open to workers of this country under Australian workplace agreements under the Workplace Relations Act. The Leader of the Opposition is a man who is showing all the symptoms of moral decline under the pressure of leadership that he is unable to give. Today we have seen from the Leader of the Opposition a series of misleading statements, a web of half-truths. He came into this parliament and read out a list of companies, the suggestion being that the workers of these companies had received absolutely nothing under this government's scheme. Let me say that of the companies named by the Leader of the Opposition, one of them became insolvent before the government's scheme was in place, no claim has been received from four of the relevant companies—and I certainly encourage the Leader of the Opposition to ask the people at those companies to make a claim if he feels that they have been dudded of their entitlements—claims are still being processed for five of the relevant companies, and workers' entitlements are being paid at four of those companies. The point to make is that the entitlements being paid to workers would be significantly greater if the Leader of the Opposition were prepared to tell the state Labor governments to be involved in this scheme.We had the usual talk from the Leader of the Opposition about what a terrible society Australia has become under what he likes to think of as the fascist Howard dictatorship. We are not becoming less egalitarian. As the Leader of the Opposition well knows, the latest statistical modelling by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling has shown that there has been no widening of the gap between rich and poor. The rich are not getting richer; the poor are not getting poorer. The fact is that the relative egalitarian status of this country today is exactly as it was in the early 1990s, and if there is a problem today it is a problem that the Leader of the Opposition helped to create when he was a senior minister.If we do have a problem in this country today it is the envy orgy which is promoted by people like the Leader of the Opposition, who is constantly running around this country spreading misleading information, stating as a fact things that he knows not to be facts, trying to play the old class war card and generally trying to turn Australian against Australian in the most unworthy cause of all, namely, trying to make himself Prime Minister. When he was in government, the Leader of the Opposition was a minister for white elephants. He was the worst defence minister of all time, he was the worst communications minister, he was the worst employment minister and he was the worst finance minister, and now he wants to be Prime Minister. It is ridiculous. The Australian people will never replace the best government since Bob Menzies with the worst opposition since Arthur Calwell.16:11:0027262Byrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE008K0HoltALP00—It was a great pleasure to listen to words like `orgy' and `moral decline', particularly from the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. It is a great pleasure for me to be speaking about this particular issue. It is an issue that I have direct experience with, given that a company in my electorate—Linda Electric Industries—fell under a bus, mainly as a consequence of rampant asset stripping, which had basically been encouraged by the government. I will touch on this a bit later on. It is interesting to deal with something that the minister said about policy backflips. I understand that the minister was a boxer in his old days. After the backflip on One.Tel yesterday, you must have been dragged out the back, given a low blow and then dragged in to sit and smile, because that is what you copped and you know it. So let us not talk about policy backflips, because the minister knows quite directly that that is precisely what he copped.The Prime Minister tells us that he has a scheme that looks after people who have lost their jobs as a consequence of companies' insolvency. It is the employee entitlements scheme—the one that has not been legislated in 18 months. People do not believe that this scheme is adequate, particularly in my electorate. They also see a Prime Minister who decrees policies by press release. One.Tel is a classic example. Even with this sort of tarted-up scheme that has been put forward and that we are debating today they see a man who heads a government who just cannot be trusted, because they are the cruel deceivers. People have seen this government deceive pensioners, small businesses, families and elderly pensioners. The government has basically proven, with its deception about the $1,000 compensation for each pensioner and the four per cent pension increase, that this mob are even prepared to deceive their own grandmothers. They also see a wall of dollars when there is a problem. These people want an entitlement scheme that works. They want an entitlement scheme that offers 100 per cent entitlements when their company goes bust.I would like to touch on the effects of the government's policy. We have heard today that in effect this policy is a fantastic policy that the government has put forward. But our policy is better. Our policy basically guarantees that workers will receive their entitlements should a company go insolvent. There is a huge degree of uncertainty between the time that an employee loses their job to the time that they receive their entitlements. In some cases it is four or five months; in other cases it is years. Time after time, we have seen people losing their houses, losing their cars and losing their families through no fault of their own. They see a company go bust and a tarted-up scheme that is supposed to solve their problems. The Australian people do not believe that this scheme is adequate.As I said, there was a particular instance in my electorate, at Linda Industries, which, on 31 March last year, sacked 40 workers, mostly migrant women with limited career prospects. They were unceremoniously escorted off the premises by Linda Industries staff for asking one particular question: `Where are my entitlements, my full entitlements?' Just like the Prime Minister's brother, like National Textiles: they thought that, if it was good enough for them, it was good enough for the workers at Linda Industries. But, for asking their question, they were escorted off the premises. How many other Australian employees in a similar situation, asking for what the Prime Minister's brother got, were carted off the property?What had happened, as a consequence of this government's encouragement by a nod and a wink to Patrick, was that a company stashed its assets elsewhere. When it came time to pay the entitlements, people were told initially that they were not there. In the first place, this company actually lied about the fact that it would be sacking people. The company was apparently quite solvent two years ago, but it appeared to have been run into the ground. I understand that one of the owners of the company had a track record of doing this. I could touch on another example, though I do not think time will permit, which is STP. What Linda Industries were doing after they had escorted these people off the premises was hiring casuals in place of sacked workers and paying overtime to these casual workers. So much for the corporate mentality attitude that this government has fostered! Given the company's apparent lack of concern for its workers, the sacked workers were interested in the government's response to their plight. One of the women, Anna Gaica, wrote to the then minister, Minister Reith, with respect to her and her workers' plight. I understand she still has not received a response. This is what she said after being carted off the property:What we are asking for is a fair deal to be given to us, just as the layoff of the National Textile workers received. We are ... predominantly women and of migrant background, living in depressed areas with limited career prospects for the future. Reasons why we believe that we have a right for our entitlements to be paid immediately is: The liquidators have hired casuals to do the work of unpaid sacked workers. Some casuals are re-hired sacked workers who have not been paid their entitlements and are also working overtime. Termination details that they were provided with did not provide all relevant details such as long service leave, superannuation, exact severance pay. Some machinery and stock have been sold to a Warrnambool company. What Anna Gaica asked was what Australian workers are asking. She said:I urge you to honour your statements that a Liberal Government will not disadvantage blue-collar workers of Australia. It is imperative that you show the same consideration to us as you did with John Howard's brother and the National Textile Company. That is about one particular company in my electorate. The interesting story was that we forced this company to pay the $1.3 million of entitlements that were owed. That was not due to any pressure by the government; the government did not put these people under pressure. But the 80 workers that were unceremoniously escorted off the property actually got their entitlements. If you have a look at the example—I think it is something like 127 companies that have gone through the hoop—particularly over the past four years, not many people have actually received their entitlements.The government are aware that this is a scheme that works. I think their dilemma is that they do not want to be seen—as with petrol, as with the business activity statement—to be stealing yet another policy too soon. But there has been one voice, along with our party generally, that has been crying out in the wilderness with respect to this 100 per cent guarantee, and that is the member for Prospect, Janice Crosio. I want to pay tribute to her quest to ensure that workers get their rightful entitlements. I want to read some excerpts from her speech regarding this matter, particularly given—and it should be considered by government members opposite—the lack of action on heartfelt and decent pleas. I quote from her speech in support of the private member's bill that we have introduced on several occasions since 1997, but that the government refuses to take note of:Each time I have introduced this bill, to my disappointment and to the detriment of thousands of Australian workers, it has been ignored and been allowed to lapse by this government. However, every year that this government chooses to ignore and not legislate this bill, thousands of Australian workers are being robbed of their legally accrued entitlements. She goes on to say, almost in a spirit of desperation:Here, I introduce the bill for the fourth time and hopefully this time the federal government will have the decency to work with this bill and come up with some viable plan to secure 100 per cent of workers' entitlements. I will not rest, whether I am in opposition or in government, until Australian workers have 100 per cent of their entitlements secured. Despite all of the commotion and attention this issue of employee entitlements has received over the years, thousands of Australian workers are still being forced out of work, with many losing all or most of their accrued entitlements.Last year, after four successive years of the Labor opposition proposing employee entitlements schemes, the government's hand was forced ...Their hand was forced as a consequence of their reaction to the National Textiles case. Effectively we have been pushing this government for years to deliver what they want to deny, which is fairness and equity to Australian workers. Australian workers have seen their industrial relations system torched. They have not had an independent umpire that they could go to, because it has been gutted by this government. But they have seen a lot of corporate malfeasance; they have seen a lot of asset stripping. Whilst most, if not all, Australian workers want 100 per cent of their entitlements, what they have received is a tarted-up scheme in response to the Prime Minister's brother being bailed out at National Textiles. But what they also have not seen is some action taken on asset stripping. If time permits, I will just go into a very quick example, which is STP in Victoria. This was a company that manufactured pressure vessels and petrol tanks. This company used the same tactic as Patrick used on the waterfront of transferring employees to $2 shelf companies with no assets. The interesting thing is that 150 of the 240 full-time staff were placed into shelf companies. They were owed something like $3.3 million. Their entitlements lost included superannuation, long service leave, holiday pay and severance pay. Interestingly, the founder's family and the mother were secured creditors to the tune of $1 million. Whilst the government has done nothing to guarantee 100 per cent employee entitlements, it has seen this corporate malfeasance and done nothing about it. We have asked for four years for Australian workers to be given a fair go, to be given their rightful entitlements, particularly when they lose their jobs. We have asked in vain for four years. It is only through the election of a Beazley government that these people will have fairness, equity and their full entitlements.16:21:0027265Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—It is a strange thing, isn't it, that, in the 13 years in office that the Labor government had between 1983 and 1996, it was unable to provide anything? It was only in accord mark 8 that you finally got around to mentioning it. And what was it that you said then? You said that you would examine and, if practical and desirable, look at maybe doing something. That was a pretty poor effort after 13 years if this really is the level of concern that the Labor Party has about employees who are struck by employer insolvency. We have seen in the last little while a great deal of public outcry over the activities of One.Tel and the HIH issue. We have seen those bonus payments of $7 million each to Jodee Rich and Brad Keeling, we have seen One.Tel workers being left on the shelf by those two, and subsequently an agreement that perhaps they will give some money for the workers' entitlements. I certainly hope that that occurs because Australians were upset to see the plight of those workers and the fact that those common law contracts were unable to provide some redundancy entitlements.I was interested, as the minister was in his address earlier, to recall those many companies that went broke in all those years of the ALP administration of federal government in Australia, between 1983 and 1996. You can go back and count some of them off: the State Bank of Victoria, Bond Corp, Tricontinental, WA Inc., and the Farrow group, which was made up of Pyramid, Geelong and Countrywide building societies. That is a long list of Labor inspired difficulties that did not produce for those workers the kinds of outcomes that the members opposite seem to be aspiring to today. In fact, the ACTU estimate that, on average, 17,000 workers are not paid entitlements on the basis of insolvencies each year. They say that, on average, each of these employees is owed something like $7,000. I do not know if that is correct or not, because it is a statement coming from the ACTU. But, if it is correct, in the time that Labor was in government 221,000 people were left in the lurch by the Labor Party at a cost of $1.25 billion shared between those people. That is a scandal. And to hear the hypocrisy coming from over there now must absolutely stick in the craw of all those people who were retrenched, who were left on the shelf in those days, and had to try and find their way ahead in the rust bucket state that Victoria, for example, became under ALP management. I have some cuttings here so that we can recall a few examples from those years. One article, from the Sunday Age on 2 December 1995, says:The Commonwealth Bank takeover of the State Bank of Victoria which then premier Mrs Joan Kirner and then treasurer Mr Paul Keating said would not mean one retrenchment has so far cost 6500 Victorian jobs.And there are another 1800 to go.The article goes on, and down at the end says:Last week, the union representing Commonwealth Bank and former State Bank workers said up to 600 of the 8314 Victorians who had lost their jobs ... were retrenched.The Commonwealth Bank did not respond to inquiries from `The Sunday Age' ...I am not surprised. That calamity was inspired by the then state government of Victoria. Their fingerprints were all over it. The retrenchment of those 600 workers and the loss of 8,314 jobs are totally on their account. Here is another article, from the Australian Financial Review on 27 November 1992. It says:Losses in the collapse of the Farrow group of building societies are expected to reach $1 billion, 40 per cent of the group's $2.5 billion assets, the societies' liquidator, Mr Tony Hodgson, revealed yesterday.Mr Hodgson's report also revealed that two directors—Mr Bill Farrow and Mr David Clarke—had received personal drawings of $26.3 million in four years from the group and a further $18 million was paid to them “shortly before” the collapse as a result of subsidiary transactions.Does that sound familiar? That was going on under that Labor administration in Victoria. It is a shame. Another article from 1992, in the Australian Financial Review on 22 September, says:Like the State Bank losses that have plagued Labor governments in Victoria and South Australia, the huge cost of WA Inc is going to be a burden on West Australian governments for much of the next decade.The financial pressure on the State Government has already been illustrated by its failure to meet its own debt repayment targets, and its decision to privatise the State-owned R&I Bank and insurer SGIO.Further down, the article says:The Government paid $175 million for what was effectively a block of land—as part of WA Inc.—and an idea for a new industry, while the Bond Corp—which was another great Labor trustee—paid $225 million for the remainder.The major beneficiary was Laurie Connell, who received $350 million for his half-share, while Dallas Dempster received $50 million for his half-share.Those shenanigans in those days remain a blight on Australia. It says in that article how WA taxpayers would still be paying for that, and people in other states are still suffering because of the ramifications of those collapses and the absolutely irresponsible ALP management.Going through those lists of cases demonstrates two different theories of activity by the ALP in dealing with them. If you take the case of the Farrow group, the doors were shut, everyone lost their jobs and everyone dealing with Pyramid and the other building societies had to put off their workers too. There were jobs lost all over the place—it was scorched earth. Or, if you take the case of the State Bank of South Australia, the Labor Party put in a $3.15 billion bailout. So taxpayers were certainly carrying that burden: a $3.15 billion bailout for an ALP shonk. What was that going to achieve in terms of workers' entitlements? Stuff all. What it achieved was a burden on the taxpayers. If the ALP had been genuinely interested in representing workers instead of running these shonky transactions through all these various banks, then we would perhaps have had at that time an employee protection scheme that could have been worth at least $3.15 billion and we would still be as well off—in fact, we would probably still have a profitable bank too. In those cases it was not Jodee Rich and Brad Keeling we were dealing with; it was Joan Kirner and Paul Keating. There were many companies that went broke in those days. Some of them were in Labor government hands, some were as a result of its mismanagement of enterprises, some because of its mismanagement of public policy and some fell over all by themselves. I can give you another example of a very large Labor-run entity. This big Labor-run entity made losses over five years, one after the other, of $11.5 billion, $17 billion, $17 billion, $13 billion and $10 billion. Wouldn't you be concerned if you were a director of an organisation like that? Wouldn't you think that such a thing might be insolvent? In fact, over that period, they made a total net loss of $74 billion. If you add all the losses up, that ALP-run entity made losses altogether of $89 billion. In terms of debt, that entity got further into debt by $80 billion during the time of ALP management. I refer, of course, to the federal government of Australia. That is the kind of operation that the ALP government was running between 1983 and 1996. If you go through that, midway through that process the directors of that ALP entity, the good old federal government, issued a prospectus to their suffering shareholders and said, `If you support us, re-elect us, then we will give you a big dividend.' This was in 1993. But, of course, what happened? How many cents in the dollar did that Labor government actually pay? In fact it was less than zero: when the piper called the tune, there was no money. And what had to happen? The poor shareholders, the taxpayers of Australia, as I refer to them, were faced with increases in wholesale sales tax: two per cent increases in wholesale sales tax right across the board. So the members of parliament who were those wonderful directors—I suppose it was Paul Keating and Jodee Beazley on that occasion—were offering us nothing, and Australia is the poorer for it. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Committees27267272672726716:31:0027267Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 18 June 2001.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 18 June 2001Pursuant to standing order 331, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 18 June 2001. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 ELECTORAL MATTERS—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: User friendly, not abuser friendly: Report of the inquiry into the integrity of the electoral roll.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 1.00 p.m.Speech time limits—First 2 Members speaking—10 minutes each.Other Members—5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]2 MIGRATION—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Review of Regulation 4.31B.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 1.15 p.m.Speech time limits—First Member speaking—6 minutes.Other Members—3 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 1 x 6 mins, 3 x 3 mins]3 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: A report on visits to immigration detention centres. The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 1.35 p.m.Speech time limits—Each Member—10 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins]4 PROCEDURE—STANDING COMMIT-TEE: Promoting community involvement in the work of committees: Conference of committee chairs, deputy chairs and secretaries, 6 March 2001.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1 MR McLEAY to move:(1) That a Select Committee on Reform of the Opening of the Parliament be appointed;(2) That the Committee's report include recommendations on the: (a) procedures by which the person who had last held office as Speaker of the House could be appointed as a Deputy of the Governor-General for the purposes of the swearing in or the making of affirmations by Members of the House; (b) arrangements necessary to enable the Governor-General's opening Speech to be made in the Parliament's Great Hall; and (c) terms of a bill to alter the Constitution to require Members of the House to swear an oath or make an affirmation of allegiance to the people of Australia instead of the Queen; and(3) That the Committee be required to report on or before the last sitting of the House in September 2001. (Notice given 10 May 2001.)Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.2 MR BARRESI to move:That, in light of the Howard Government's internationally acknowledged reforms to the Australian financial system, including centralised prudential regulation, and the payments systems, and Australia's historically secure banking sector, this House:(1) welcomes the Australian Bankers' Association's announcement in March to guarantee minimum standards for `safety net' accounts, changes to overcome access barriers to electronic banking and the adoption of protocols for face to face banking services in rural and remote areas;(2) notes the recommendations of the Issues Paper of the Viney Review into the Banking Industry Code of Practice released in March 2001;(3) condemns Labor's record on banking policy in both Government and Opposition; and(4) calls on Australia's financial institutions to continuously work with local communities towards meeting the banking needs of Australians living in urban and regional areas. (Notice given 3 April 2001.)Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Miscellaneous2726810000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 6 June 2001, at 9.40 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed. Miscellaneous27269Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:Corporations Bill 2001Australian Securities and Investments Commission Bill 2001Corporations (Fees) Bill 2001Corporations (Futures Organisations Levies) Bill 2001Corporations (National Guarantee Fund Levies) Bill 2001Corporations (Securities Exchanges Levies) Bill 2001Corporations (Repeals, Consequentials and Transitionals) Bill 2001Migration Legislation Amendment (Electronic Transactions and Methods of Notification) Bill 2001Migration Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2001Prime Minister and Cabinet Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2001Bills27269R130427269Debate resumed from 4 June, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Tanner moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns this Government for its:(1) reduction in the projected Budget cash surplus from $14.6 billion when the 2001-02 Budget year first appeared in the 1998-99 Budget Papers to a surplus of $1.5 billion and an accrual deficit of $0.8 billion in this Budget;(2) failure to address the significant investment needs in the areas of education and health provision;(3) string of policy backflips and wasteful, panic driven spending across almost all program areas;(4) commitment to sell the rest of Telstra if re-elected;(5) failure to provide relief for Australian families under financial pressure;(6) failure to address the hardship, and red tape nightmare faced by small business arising from the introduction of the GST;(7) deception of self-funded retirees and pensioners through misleading taxation claims;(8) failure to provide a comprehensive retirement incomes policy which addresses the needs of the new century;(9) lax approach to corporate governance issues which has contributed to the recent spate of corporate failures;(10) lack of an ongoing commitment to the protection of employee entitlements;(11) misuse of taxpayers' money on its politically partisan GST advertising campaign;(12) provision of complex, confusing and uninformative budget documents;(13) failure to identify in the Budget papers the true cost of GST collection and implementation; and(14) failure to deliver its guarantee that no Australian will be worse off as a result of the GST package”.16:34:0027269Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00— The appropriation bills are the bills that flow from the recently announced budget, the sixth of the Howard government, and they purport to provide funding for the year 2001-02. I will take the opportunity this afternoon to talk about the impact of the appropriation bills and the budget context in the Defence portfolio and, hopefully, clear up what continue to be some misunderstandings—and I am being kind to the minister on this occasion—as to what Labor's intentions would be with the success of a Beazley government at the next election. No, I will rephrase that: what I will do in my contribution this afternoon is set the record straight and actually put down the nonsense, the misinformation, the deliberate attempts to distort Labor's policy by Peter Reith, the Minister for Defence. Quite frankly, we on this side are sick to death of the minister coming in here at every opportunity and seeking to politicise the debate on the defence of this nation. Since I have had the honour to be the Labor Party spokesman for defence in the past 2½ years, I have enjoyed a pretty reasonable relationship with the ministers on the other side. Well, at least I did with John Moore. But I have to say that, since Minister Reith has come along, with his attempts to politicise the debate on defence issues, the bounds of the ability of both sides of politics to work together have been stretched—and yet this is in a fundamental area of national security, where politics should not be played. Yes, perhaps around the edges you can point to some problems—and I intend to do that during my contribution today. There has been blatant misrepresentation of the opposition's views of the white paper brought down last year and of what we would do with the present budget as it stands at the moment, and a number of comments have been made about pieces of equipment that the Labor Party would or would not buy and what cuts we might make to the budget for the defence department should we be elected into government at the next election. All of these are just blatant attempts by the minister to steer the debate away from some of the shortcomings that have existed because of the role that he is now playing as a minister and from some of the decisions that, regrettably, are not forthcoming from the government—which clearly need to be made for the benefit of people in the defence industry, the people in the defence forces themselves, and for Australians who understand the importance of defence to this nation.What we have seen is a minister who has been focused on creating differences between Labor and the coalition on defence policy—when in fact there are not any—at a time when the government should be concentrating on the pressing issues that face the defence organisation. There are a number of these, and the first that I want to turn to is the issue of capital programs and delays in announcements by this government. This is a government that likes to wrap itself in the flag. Both the Prime Minister and Minister for Defence—whether it is the present one or John Moore, his predecessor—go out and say to the people of Australia, `Only the Liberal Party can be good for the defence of this nation. We have these great ideas for all these programs that we want to see come on line. We are great economic managers. We are going to acquire some new equipment, whether it is for the Air Force, the Navy or the Army. We will manage projects reasonably, on time and under budget, so the benefits will flow to the Australian Defence Force and the Australian people.'What an absolute load of nonsense! Let me illustrate why. Some time ago a decision was taken that we needed to replace the Fremantle patrol boats. These operate in Northern Australia. They have come to the end of their economic life. They are just about clapped-out. They have done a great job, but they need replacing. Where is the decision about who is going to be the successful tenderer for the patrol boats? Silence, because the government will not make a decision. We have had defence industry contractors—Australian and foreign—all bidding to try to be the appropriate defence industry that is going to construct these, but no decision has been taken.Then we have a major logistics contract worth about $3 billion that the government went to tender for some time ago. A whole range of Australian companies tendered for this contract. The government had a pantechnicon truck full of tender documents that were given to tenderers to fill in. They spent many millions of dollars doing that. Three pantechnicon truck loads of answers were sent back to the Department of Defence to look at. I understand that the report and the selection of a preferred tenderer has been with the government since at least September last year—and what has happened? Nothing. Why is that so?What is DIDS to start with? It is the logistics operation for the entire Defence Force. It will take away from Defence personnel the responsibility for distributing to the Defence Force around Australia everything from toilet paper to bullets and give it to private contractors. Why then isn't the government, which is hell-bent on outsourcing, whether it be in Defence or anywhere else, moving on this? Could it be because of the Prime Minister's Nyngan declaration of some time ago? At Nyngan he said, `If there is any decision taken by one of my ministers, a red light is going to flash in my office and I will have to be told about any regional employment implications.' I wonder if that red light has been flashing for some months in the Prime Minister's office. I think it has. I think that is the reason why we have not seen an announcement made on the DIDS program: because it is going to mean job losses in regional Australia. I have been to Puckapunyal twice now. I was there last year when the serving men and women of the Australian Defence Force at Puckapunyal had been told that Minister John Moore was going to make an announcement in the next couple of days about DIDS. They were panicked about whether they would have jobs into the future. What happened? No announcement. When I went back again they were still saying to me, `Do you know what this government is going to do about DIDS? We cannot get an answer from it'. Can people in the defence industry that have tendered for this and have spent millions of dollars on this get a decision out of the government? The answer: no, they cannot. What are their options?People are now saying that the government is going to walk away from the DIDS program because it does mean losses of jobs in regional Australia and the government is not prepared to do anything about it before the next election. I have heard also that the DIDS program has been cancelled altogether. If that is the case, I suspect that the Australian government could face compensation cases from the tenderers, who have been told not to resubmit tenders at this stage. The question has to be asked about these great economic managers on the other side, this government that believes it knows what it is doing: how can a decision like this be taken and why won't it be taken?The next issue I want to talk about was something that the Treasurer referred to on budget night in his budget speech. He talked about the airborne early warning and control aircraft that Australia was going to acquire and `wasn't it wonderful that, through the white paper process and the budget process, money was going to be made available for this much-needed aircraft'. Let me tell you something about the history of the airborne early warning and control aircraft. This is about providing us with airborne intelligence. Boeing aircraft will be used and Northrop Grumman radar equipment is going to be associated with it. It will give us terrific coverage in the northern reaches of Australia. It will give us a collection of data for intelligence, and it will provide a terrific adjunct to the information that we receive from other sources.The decision on the successful tenderer for that was made before September 1999. How do I know that? Because I went to Washington at the time and spoke to the people from Boeing and Northrop Grumman who said, `We have won the tender. What is holding up the signing off on it?' What was holding up the signing off on it was that the United States got a bit toey because this was new equipment that no-one else was getting, not even the United States Air Force. They were a bit uncertain, even though we are one of their closest allies, as to whether they should sign off on it straightaway. After considerable pressure that came from the Australian Ambassador to the United States, Andrew Peacock, from the US Ambassador to Australia, from the State Department and from the Deputy Secretary for Defense of the United States, finally it was ticked off and export licences were guaranteed.What did the government do then? They said, `We are not going to sign any contracts for these aircraft now. We are going to wait until after the white paper comes out to see if we still need them.' Of course we still need them. People have been talking for 20 years about the need to acquire something like these. The decision had been taken, supported by the opposition, that these aircraft should be acquired. But the government said, `No. We will wait until after the white paper.' Some might say, `Not a bad strategy. The white paper is going to look at the security issues of our immediate environment. It is going to look at the new kit that we would have to acquire to replace FA18s, F111s, destroyers and patrol boats—all the kit that is running out of steam at the present minute.' However, these great economic geniuses ended up getting four of these aircraft for the price of six! You tell me how good that is in an economic sense: delaying the decision has meant that we are going to get four airborne early warning and control aircraft for the price of six. Not only that; not one of them is going to be manufactured in Australia and not one of them is going to be assembled in Australia. Previously, under the deal that was on offer, we were going to get seven and at least five of those were going to be assembled in Australia, providing jobs in this country. But, because of the slackness of this government in managing the defence budget and taking decisions that were necessary, we have seen that all slip through. The fact is that, when it comes to economic credentials in the defence area, the government has absolutely no credibility whatsoever.We will go on to talk about one of the more important issues for the Australian Defence Force. I know the Minister for Aged Care, who is at the table, has a genuine interest in this because she was the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and I have spoken to her about issues associated with both the defence industry and personnel. I know that she has a continuing and abiding interest in this. I will come to both of those issues. Let me go to the personnel one first. It must break her heart, as I am sure it breaks the heart of anyone who has an interest in these issues, to know that this government had decided to run down the personnel number of full-time serving men and women in the ADF to below 50,000.In fact, when this government came into office, they inherited a full-time ADF—uniformed personnel—of 58,000 people. The government took a decision, under the defence reform program, to run that down to 42,500. The services chiefs went on bended knee to the then minister, Ian McLachlan, and said, `Please, let's not do this. We need at least 50,000.' Ian McLachlan said, `All right—50,000 personnel.' Then along came East Timor and suddenly we realised we needed more, so the government signed off on 55,000 full-time personnel. One would have thought—the government having then got the agreement of the defence chiefs, for very strong strategic reasons because of East Timor, and having certainly got the support of the opposition—that 55,000 as an achievable target should have been what the government aimed at. But have they got anywhere near it? The answer is no. I am not saying this; this is in this damning report from the Australian National Audit Office, which came down last week and is dated 29 May 2001, on Causes and consequences of personnel postings in the Australian Defence Force—Department of Defence. Let me give you a flavour of what this report says. At page 12 in the conclusion—listen to this, Mr Deputy Speaker—it says:The ADF is finding it increasingly difficult to recruit sufficient personnel to meet recruitment targets and to retain existing members. During 1999-2000, the ADF recruited 4043 members but, in the same year, 6467 members left. If the gap between separations and recruitment continues to increase, the Services will be less able to control postings and, more importantly, ADF personnel numbers will remain below desired levels.That is code for the capability that we need to have because of some of the deteriorating circumstances of our regional area. It means we do not have the capability to conduct operations that we might be called on to do. But it does not stop there: on page 37 that same report says:The current separation rates across all three Services are higher than both the five and 10 year average separation rates.At page 38 it says:Responses to the 1999 ADF Attitude Survey indicated that almost a third of respondents had formed the intention to leave their respective Service. This represents about 17 200 personnel (in a force of 51 500) looking for other employment. That is an absolute disgrace. What do we have? We have the Minister for Defence, in question time today, and we have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence running around, putting smokescreens up about recruitment into the cadets in Australia when we have this parlous set of figures and this dreadful circumstance with full-time ADF numbers. We cannot recruit them and we cannot retain them; there are all sorts of reasons given in this report as to why that is the case. It all comes down to this minister's watch and yet they are out there saying, `Look, we're going to have cadets. We are going to have 15-year-old kids running around in schools, in cadet units and so on—that will solve the problem.' It will not. Labor supports the cadets absolutely—we have said that. But that is not going to solve this problem of full-time and reservist personnel in Australia taking up the needs of the Australian Defence Force. There is a loss of corporate knowledge in this mass exodus from the defence ranks and it is causing enormous problems.Some of the reasons that have been put out as to why this personnel crisis exists go to things like the government being a little bit mean and tricky when it comes to things like allowances and other conditions of service. Take the FBT and take the remote locality leave travel allowance. After a concerted effort by the opposition, the government finally backed down on some of the FBT issues, but they have not gone all the way, and on the remote leave locality allowance they are simply being mean. Most Australian personnel in the ADF have to go to northern Australia sometime—it is logical; that is where our bases are—yet, to get leave allowances to be able to travel home, the government have simply put in a new formula. They do not recognise that ADF personnel are separate from the rest of the work force. They do not recognise that they do not work under awards, that they do not have holidays, that they do not have a union and that they do not get paid for overtime. Yet this government are out there saying, `No, it is only the Liberal Party that can look after the Defence Force.'I also mention that the minister at the table and I also shared an interest in defence industry policy. When she was the minister, she oversaw the publication of a report on the defence industry which is still seen as being the hallmark of where we should be going. Is it being implemented? Regrettably, Minister, you and I both know it is not, and I get a stream of people from defence industry coming through my door saying that this government will not make the decisions on defence industry that are needed. We know, for example, that there is a secret report on the shipbuilding industry in this country that is sitting in the minister's office. We know that report is there because, in terms of military equipment that is going to be required under the white paper and through the budget processes of the coming years, we know there is going to be a need to replace the patrol boats and we know there is a need to replace our destroyers. We know we need to acquire an air warfare capability. We know that that is the case.But what are we seeing in terms of Australian involvement? What are we seeing in government policy from the present government that assists that? Nothing. And yet when Minister Bishop, who is at the table, was the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel she brought down a report that pointed the way. I think the current situation is scandalous, and so do people in the industry. On the shipping issue, in the future some hard decisions are going to be taken about the future of the Australian shipbuilding industry. We have so many shipyards around Australia, but we have only a limited number of opportunities that are going to come along. We still have questions about the Australian Submarine Corporation. What is its future? It has been nationalised by the government; they intend to sell it sometime, but to whom? What involvement is there going to be for the Americans? What about Australian industry involvement? I say again—and I put it on the public record— that the Labor Party and I are unashamedly and unabashedly nationalist when it comes to Australian industry involvement in defence, and our policy will reflect that. There were a couple of very tricky issues in the budget which I thought were worth commenting on. One was how they are going to pay for some of the initiatives that have been announced—that goes, of course, to the huge fire sale of Defence property. I know that one of the members sitting in this place is a bit concerned about the Defence base down in her electorate, should somebody come along and say at some stage, `We don't need Wagga; perhaps it should be sold off.' The government have identified $1 billion worth of assets that the defence department owns which are supposed to be sold in the year 2001-02—$1 billion worth. It is going to be some real estate agent that goes out and does that for the Department of Defence, I can tell you. So they have been a little bit tricky saying, `We're going to have all this money going to the defence budget,' and so on, but when you look at it a lot of it is also going into consolidated revenue; it is not all going to stay in the defence budget, and that is going to be a bit of a concern. The other thing—which I have remarked upon previously, of course—is that, once again, we see in this budget a decrease of $130 million in the money being spent on capital equipment. That follows what happened last year: another cut, of $380 million. Let me point out in conclusion that Labor supports the white paper and Labor supports the budget initiatives—they are about right, and I have said that. Labor wants to again embrace this and give bipartisan support to defence policy, as we should. This Minister for Defence, however, needs to go back and start to read and learn about defence issues, to make some hard decisions, to look after the personnel that he has responsibility for, to look after the Defence bases around this nation and to make some decisions in industry policy. Let us see this thing tick over properly. (Time expired)16:54:0027274Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—This year's budget announcement has delivered for rural and regional Australia, and I believe that it has also laid down the foundation for a stable future. The Treasurer has announced the coalition government's fifth consecutive budget surplus—a cash surplus of $1.5 billion after the repayment of nearly $60 billion of Labor's $80 billion debt. As the Treasurer indicated in his speech, back in 1995 the Keating Labor government spent the same amount on interest payments as it did on schools and hospitals. Due to the competition with homebuyers and business to borrow money, Labor's debt caused interest rates to soar, forcing many small businesses to close and unemployment to hit a record high. During the Hawke-Keating Labor rule, my small business was paying interest rates of 25 per cent. Paying off Labor's debt and reducing our interest bills means that, as shown in this budget, this government can now spend money on more important things. The Hawke-Keating Labor government tore the heart out of regional Australia. This budget is now about putting the heart back into regional Australia, and this government has been doing that since 1996.This government's sound fiscal policy has delivered the lowest small business interest rates in 30 years. I have a major commitment to the survival of small business and, as I have said many times before in this House, small businesses are very important to my electorate of Riverina. They are the engine room of the nation's economy and our largest employment provider. Their money stays predominantly local and multiplies to bring added benefits to the district. In expanding their businesses, they also utilise local providers. They traditionally buy local because they are local. Their profits do not disappear into national profits or, indeed, into overseas bank accounts. Their money stays to support the communities that they service and that they are part of. This budget continues to support small business by further reforming our outdated tax system by again reducing the company tax rate from 34 to 30 per cent, cutting tax for business by around $2 billion per year. The simplified tax system will effectively reduce small business tax payments by more than $1 billion in the first three years and allow eligible small businesses to do their tax accounting on a cash basis with simpler depreciation and trading stock rules. The abolition of financial institutions duty will save around $1.2 billion a year, which will be particularly beneficial to small businesses with a high turnover whose deposits were hit with the duty every time they did their banking. Registered businesses are now able to claim full input tax credits on the purchase of motor vehicles, and when wholesale sales tax was replaced by the GST the cost of a new vehicle fell by around seven per cent— and that is a great advantage to small business. The availability of full input tax credits further reduces the cost of motor vehicles to businesses by around nine per cent. This government has allocated an additional $5 million to the Small Business Incubator Program, which assists small businesses to establish themselves by providing premises, advice, services and support in the crucial early stages of business development. This program has been successful in reducing the failure rate of new businesses, particularly in rural and regional Australia. In recognising small business's contribution to employment, this budget offers significant incentives to assist employers to take on new apprentices, with almost $2 billion being provided over the next four years for the highly successful New Apprenticeship initiative. A significant contribution has also been made to develop and enhance the business skills of many small business owners by funding projects that provide access to mentoring, information services and skills development through the Small Business Enterprise Culture Program. This program has proven extremely beneficial, as it caters for small business people who require access to skills development courses but do not have time to attend TAFE or university.Suicide in rural and regional Australia is one of the paramount concerns. This government, in this budget's 2001-02 health initiatives, has provided better outcomes in mental health care. Mental illness is one of the most serious health issues facing Australia, with 2.4 million Australians—that is, 18 per cent of the population—experiencing a mental health problem each year. The Mental health and wellbeing profile of adults 1997 from the Australian Bureau of Statistics supports this. Most people use their GP as the first point for help with mental health issues. In recognition of this, this government, under the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon. Michael Wooldridge, will provide $120.4 million over the next four years to assist general practitioners to develop their skills in mental health diagnosis, care, planning and treatment. A new Medicare Benefits Schedule item will be introduced to enable appropriately trained GPs to provide a limited range of non-medication based therapies. The government will also support doctors to form effective links with other mental health professionals, including psychologists and psychiatrists.This package will significantly improve the mental health care available to Australians—to all Australians but, more importantly, to rural and regional Australians. It builds on previous measures, including the National Depression Initiative and National Primary Mental Health Care Initiative, to provide a comprehensive range of care options. The National Depression Initiative, which is supported by Commonwealth funding of $17.5 million over five years, from 2000 to 2005, is being carried forward by Beyond Blue, which was established in late 2000 and launched by the minister for health just a few weeks ago here in Parliament House. The aims of this initiative are to increase community awareness and understanding of depression, promote professional training and development, and support research into prevention, early intervention and treatment and management of depression. This government has significantly improved all of the prospects for mental health patients, now and into the future, across Australia.In addition, in this budget the government has provided for an increase in patient rebates for GP services of about $300 million over four years. This has been something that GPs have been asking for for some time. This government, in this budget, has delivered. NV5Forrest, John, MP83OHull, Kay, MPMrs HULL—After long consultation, as the member for Mallee has quite rightly indicated. This measure will particularly benefit patients with complex or chronic conditions, who may need to spend more time with their doctor, so they are not shunted in and out of a surgery. They can have quality time with their professional and take time out to understand their complex or chronic condition. The measure provides increased rebates for longer consultations.This measure forms part of the government's response to the relative value study—that we are increasingly hearing the AMA talk about—of the Medicare Benefits Schedule, MBS, which showed that patient rebates for medical consultations by GPs were underfunded relative to rebates provided for medical procedures performed by specialists. This government is committed to ensuring the work of GPs is appropriately recognised—and so it should be recognised. Rural and regional GPs across Australia are the foundation of their communities. This increase in Medicare rebates paves the way for a comprehensive restructure of GP attendance items under the MBS to better reward quality care.I come from the Riverina, notoriously known for its level of asthma. This `better GP management of asthma' strategy provides for the proactive management of asthma by GPs and will assist those with moderate to severe asthma. More than two million Australians have asthma, including one in four primary school children, one in seven teenagers and one in 10 adults. Asthma is a potentially life-threatening disease which can be controlled by appropriate diagnosis and management. The minister for health and this government are assisting by providing better strategies to help care for these people.Something that has long been of concern to me is the shortage of doctors and trained nurses in regional and rural areas, which is currently at crisis level. This shortage is due in large part to the extremely difficult working conditions and lack of assistance in most rural practices and hospitals, but this shortage has happened over many years. We came to the position in 1996 where the deterioration in the quality of nurses and health practitioners was demonstrated by the way in which they were leaving hospitals and their respective places of employment. In this budget the government has responded with measures worth $117.3 million to encourage doctors to employ nurses within rural practices and encourage rural Australians to consider nursing as a career or to return to nursing. The employment of practice nurses will allow general practitioners in these practices to focus more efficiently on diagnosis and clinical care, while allowing the nurses to assist in managing chronic diseases such as diabetes and asthma, conducting health assessments and providing clinical support.Also of assistance to doctors is the government's commitment to after hours primary medical care services. That has been something long in coming, but it is finally represented here by this government's action in reducing the after hours workload on rural doctors, while ensuring that patients have access to the advice and services that they require. These measures are aimed at relieving some of the pressures on rural doctors. This will in turn assist in recruitment and retention in all rural areas. Currently this is a dramatic issue. It is something that needs to be addressed urgently. This government—the coalition government—have put all of their thoughts and powers into ensuring that rural constituents have a better quality of life.A sum of $5.2 million over four years has been allocated to making available re-entry training programs for rural nurses—to be provided via a scholarship program supplying approximately 400 scholarships each year, at up to $3,000 per scholarship, to aid former rural nurses by removing some of the financial hurdles involved in their re-entry to the work force. This is a significant step forward for health in rural and regional Australia. People that have to be hospitalised can have surety that their hospitals will be in operation, because of this initiative by the government. I welcomed the announcement of 100 rural nursing scholarships to educate rural students at a rural campus, as rural students are more likely to end up serving patients in rural and regional areas. These $10,000 scholarships will actively encourage our rural kids to seriously undertake nursing as a career and lift some of the financial burden. An additional 10 scholarships will provided for indigenous students or Aboriginal health workers to undertake nursing education.Labor's legacy was a failed health system. Labor failed the health of all Australians during their 13 years in government. Labor failed to deliver adequate health outcomes for all Australians. They failed to deliver meaningful solutions on rural health. During Labor's period in government they allowed a decline in rural health services and an exodus of GPs from the bush. Labor have also failed to adequately fund the public hospital system, and they continue to underfund the public hospital system in New South Wales under the Carr government.One of the future benefactors of this government's budget, I would hope, will be Charles Sturt University. Charles Sturt University was created out of two colleges of advanced education in 1989. It then had a student population of about 13,000, with a limited course portfolio and almost no research activity. At establishment there was no increased investment by government in infrastructure or operating grants. There was no compensation for the cost of travel between the campuses or for the STD phone calls or remoteness from the metropolitan area. It was established at the time of the Hawke Labor government.Despite these impediments, on its own merits Charles Sturt University, under the astute guidance of the soon to retire vice-chancellor, Professor Cliff Bake, is the success story of the new universities. CSU has answered the challenge, and it now boasts that—and it has every right to boast that. It is the largest distance education provider in Australia and leads the way with online education, something that the coalition has built on in its budget and its answer to the Besley report. CSU now has 36,000 students on its books and is in the top 10 Australian universities.Charles Sturt University has more than 10,000 students studying offshore in some 10 different countries, placing it in the few top universities with overseas operations. It has answered the call of rural and regional Australia by providing education programs in those areas needed by rural Australia—for example, education, paramedical studies and nursing are recipients of this budget. Pharmacy is another recipient of this budget, as are physiotherapy, allied services, occupational therapy, radiography, environmental science and primary production. I am hopeful that many of the initiatives within the budget will benefit Charles Sturt University, because Charles Sturt University trains people in the country for the country. Some 60 per cent of its students are from rural areas. This is a great boast for Charles Sturt University. Charles Sturt University trains the vast majority of winemakers in Australia. The wine industry, of course, is one of Australia's success stories of the last decade.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—You put a wine equalisation tax on them.83OHull, Kay, MPMrs HULL—You would know that, member for Hunter. It boasts Australian success stories. CSU provides the education program for the New South Wales police. Much of the GST that is collected by the federal government and passed on to the state of New South Wales is actually for training those police in academies, so the New South Wales state Labor government is the recipient of much of the well generated GST into their coffers. Charles Sturt University is an absolute credit to our nation and one that I am indeed very proud of. We, as a nation, need to support our regional universities, like Charles Sturt University, because they play a large role in regional development, in providing professionals for rural Australia and in helping to overcome the educational disadvantage of rural and remote communities. It is an investment well spent and with high returns for our nation. Twenty-four ex-prisoners of war and approximately 72 widows of ex-prisoners of war in the Riverina will benefit from the one-off payment to former Australian prisoners of war of the Japanese and civilian internees and detainees of the Japanese. Australian service personnel and civilians held captive by Japanese suffered unique hardships during their captivity due to the Japanese soldiers' naivety of international laws concerning prisoners. In November of last year it gave me great pleasure to be able to announce to my electorate an additional boost of over $28 million to local road funding as part of the four-year Roads to Recovery program delivered by the Deputy Prime Minister in his portfolio. This funding will provide for the Riverina additional job opportunities and improve safety on our local roads, with school buses no longer having to mix with heavy haulage on narrow and dangerous roads. Road transport is essential to the growth and sustainability of rural communities. Roads to Recovery is helping local councils to build a sound social and economic infrastructure by enhancing road safety, access to education, health care and other amenities and creating sustainable jobs.The ABC is one of Australia's primary cultural institutions, with a very significant role to play in Australian life. The government is committed to ensuring that the ABC remains an independent national broadcaster, delivering quality programs such as those which the Riverina regional radio station delivers into my electorate. The government has illustrated a commitment of $71.2 million over the next four years, which will enable the corporation to increase local and regional programming across all ABC media.Many of my Riverina constituents have recently welcomed the introduction of SBS as part of the government's television funds extension program, designed to bring SBS to viewers in rural and regional areas. We have been waiting a long time to receive the same quality of services experienced by those in metropolitan areas. I have in my electorate the communities of Griffith and Leeton, which have a 60 per cent Italian heritage base and 140 nationalities in that small area. They welcome SBS funding.This regional Australia blue book is delivered by the Deputy Prime Minister. It gives a sense of pride to all regional members here. It is something that has followed on each year. It has been a significant source of inspiration to us all as members of parliament. I congratulate the government on their budget initiatives over the years, and I certainly congratulate the ever-increasing budget that is extended to rural and regional Australia to better the quality of life of the people that I represent in the Riverina electorate, the people that you represent also in your electorates and the people that the member for Mallee represents in his electorate. The member for Mallee recognises that he too uses this budget book. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Before I call the honourable member for Ryan, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech and I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies.17:15:0027278Short, Leonie, MPMs SHORT 9V8RyanALP01—I thank the electors of Ryan most sincerely for doing me the honour of electing me to this House. The seat of Ryan is named after Thomas Joseph Ryan, the Labor Premier of Queensland from 1915 to 1919. It is truly an honour to be the first woman and the first Labor member to represent this seat. The seat of Ryan, in my beloved home of Brisbane, covers the leafy suburbs of Kenmore, Chapel Hill and The Gap, the culturally diverse areas of Oxley and Darra, and the beautiful rural-urban areas of Brookfield and Moggill and the rural enclave of Upper Brookfield. It is a privilege to represent such an active, civic-minded and proud group of fellow citizens, and to be associated with its eminent institutions, including the University of Queensland, the Queensland office of the ABC and many small businesses, retail outlets and light industrial factories.In the lead-up to the Ryan by-election held on 17 March, I asked 9,000 voters who had always voted Liberal to vote Labor for the first time. They did as I asked and, as history has recorded, we won the by-election with a 9.69 per cent swing to Labor on a two-candidate preferred vote. My fellow citizens in Ryan placed their trust and confidence in me and I take this very seriously indeed. I pledged to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week for the voters in Ryan, and I have already discovered that that was an underestimation. Ms Rachel Nolan, a Queensland state politician, said that I was an example of an ordinary person who was able to do something extraordinary. We were able to do the unthinkable and win the unwinnable because everyone pulled together to work as a united, coherent and efficient team. Please note that I very seldom use the word `I' when I talk about the Ryan by-election; the word `we' is much more appropriate.This team included my family, especially my mother, Ruth Hawkshaw, and my twin sister, Dr Stephanie Short; the best ALP branch ever—Indooroopilly; our brilliant campaign director, Dr Harold Thornton; ALP members, supporters, donors and friends from around the nation; my friend Ms Alison Miles, who always believed in me; unionists; my fabulous state organiser, Mr Andrew Fraser; the National Secretary of the ALP, Mr Geoff Walsh; national organisers Ms Melissa Horne and Mr Linus Power; local, state and federal members of government; and the best doorknocker of them all, our leader, the Hon. Kim Beazley. Kim believed in me, supported me and managed to bring out the best in me. He has my utmost respect as a man of great intellect, vision and compassion—a man ideally suited to be the next Prime Minister of this country.I would also like to sincerely thank the members of Emily's List for offering financial support and training when I was the endorsed candidate for the general election— they were there when I needed them— namely, the Hon. Joan Kirner, Ms Cheryl Davenport and Ms Rosemary Hume. I am grateful that you were willing to share your wisdom and knowledge with me—you are excellent role models—and I look forward to helping others as you have helped me. We are proudly wearing our Emily's List badges today. I am committed to being a community based member of parliament by staying close to the children, young people, adults and older persons in my electorate. I am listening to my fellow citizens and acting with them, not on them. Recent community based activities include serving Devonshire teas at the Brookfield Show for the Queensland Country Women's Association, attending board meetings for International House at the University of Queensland and presenting Australian flags to local primary and high schools. I have watched the Brisbane Strikers play, planted trees with the Westlake Riverhills Bushcare Group, consulted with local business people, attended Rotary events and conducted weekly mobile electorate offices at locations throughout Ryan. I vowed to give the voters of Ryan representation like they have never known before. This includes the provision of the highest standard of advocacy, representation and support.I joined the Australian Labor Party at the end of 1980 because I wanted to contribute to reducing the disparity between the haves and the have-nots in our society. I am proud of the social democratic principles of our party and our numerous policies to promote social justice.Today, I vow to make a difference in four specific areas: public health, public education, the environment and social justice. Firstly, public health. As a former member of the executive and council of the Public Health Association of Australia, I will work to contribute to public health policies and strategies. This association is a non-party-political organisation and has been promoting the health of the Australian public by providing opportunities for the exchange of ideas, knowledge and information on public health and by actively undertaking advocacy for public health policy, development, research and training.I fully support the strengthening and continuation of our national health insurance scheme, Medicare. Along with bulk-billing for general practitioner services, it forms the cornerstone of public health in Australia. More specifically, I have extensive experience in research and development related to screening for breast and colorectal cancer in Australia. This experience was obtained as the representative for the Consumer Health Forum of Australia on the National Advisory Committee for the Early Detection of Cancer for five years and with National Health and Medical Research Council grants for researching consumer preferences for colorectal cancer screening and treatment. To build on what the Hon. Kim Beazley stated in his budget response, public health screening programs need to be nationally coordinated, effectively managed, run in a consultative and efficient manner and subjected to continuous quality control. Another area of public health of enormous interest to me is oral health. In fact, I have been passionate about public oral health for 25 years. As a dental therapist, I have treated children through the school dental service in urban, rural and remote areas. I then went on to teach and research in this field for 10 years. I also instigated the establishment of the Public Health Association of Australia's Oral Health Special Interest Group. I am sorry to note that the abolition of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program in 1997 by the Howard government was a cruel and heartless act. Many people cannot eat their dinner tonight because they cannot afford private dental care and are forced to wait months or years to be treated in the public sector. Waiting lists are growing and public dental clinics are now more like toothache clinics. The situation whereby the Minister for Health and Aged Care refuses to take responsibility under section 51 of our Constitution for the fate of the public's oral health can no longer be tolerated. More importantly, a shared problem requires a shared solution. Only a combined public health action by doctors, nurses, dentists, therapists, hygienists, prosthetists and consumers can contribute to the protection and promotion of the public's oral health. Apart from working to reinstate the Commonwealth Dental Health Program, we also need to reassess the education and training of the dental work force and support oral health promotion programs within the community.The second area is public education. As a product of the state education system, I am firmly committed to a robust and receptive state school education system. As children move from the early years into primary school, through high school and then on to TAFE and university, they should be able to adapt and grow as new knowledge and information technology evolves. Education should play a high priority within the Knowledge Nation as it socialises and empowers the citizens of tomorrow.All Australians know that the fundamental guarantee of life opportunity is quality education. As an educator, a long-time member of the New South Wales Teachers Federation and the Australian Education Union, and now a member of the National Tertiary Education Union, it is appalling for me to have watched the Howard government damage public education by a determination to reduce government responsibility and undermine both equity and opportunity. Since 1997, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has pursued his preference for private schooling and further reduced the public school share—more than 36 per cent in 1996, down to almost 32 per cent in this year's budget and projected to fall to below 28 per cent in 2004.Preschool funding is lamentable, with Australia spending only 0.1 per cent of GDP in 1997 compared to an OECD average of 0.4 per cent. Investment in the significant early years of educational experience in the schools sector is a mere 3.3 per cent of GDP in 1997, compared to 5.4 per cent in the United States. Regrettably, school retention rates to year 12 are just over 71 per cent and up to 30 per cent of our young people are marginalised from basic guarantees of secure employment. To make matters worse, between 40,000 and 60,000 young people risk missing out on a TAFE place this year due to inadequate growth funding. The university sector is also in crisis, with a fall in Commonwealth funding from 58 per cent in 1996 to 52 per cent in 1998 and now to less than 50 per cent. Young people are forced to carry a burden of debt at the start of their working lives by ever increasing HECS charges. Public education is the only universal investment guaranteed to sustain a high skill, high wage nation. I can attest first-hand to the disadvantage suffered by those young people and adults marginalised from access to the full range of education. As a member of the Labor Party, I wish to reassert our policy to redirect the increases from the wealthy category 1 private schools to improving the facilities in public schools and investing in the quality of teaching. In this way, we will begin the process of restoring the balance of funding from the haves to the have-nots.Thirdly, the environment: I am firmly committed to protecting the environment—water, land and air quality—in this beautiful island continent. There is a clear link between the health of the environment and the health of its people when populations grow and the environment degrades. I am acutely aware of the problems associated with outbreaks of blue-green algae, dieback, soil erosion, overgrazing, tree clearing and salinity. I am particularly impressed with the commitment of many people who contribute to environmental projects across Australia. These occur in rural and urban areas. I would like to see a specific land care award for projects conducted in urban areas, such as in Ryan, where the Moggill Creek Catchment Group among others has done such fine work restoring that area to ecological health. Many of my fellow citizens act locally and think globally. Their contribution to improving the environment should be acknowledged and encouraged. Lastly, but certainly not least, social justice: I am committed to improving the everyday experiences and opportunities for disadvantaged groups in Australian society. Of particular interest to me are women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, war veterans and their dependants, and people living in rural and remote areas. Special programs should be developed for disadvantaged groups to reduce disparities, especially in the areas of health, education and employment. My association with national advocacy groups such as the National Rural Health Alliance, the Australian Council of Social Service and the Doctors' Reform Society is evidence of the whole of government approach that I will take to problems where teamwork is the key to sustainable solutions.Many of my fellow Australians have not been dealt a very good hand in life. Through no fault of their own, they have not had the family, community, educational and/or employment opportunities that would have enabled them to realise their full potential and to achieve their dreams. I had the good fortune to grow up in a loving family within a small rural community in which my father was the general medical practitioner and my mother a prominent member of church and other community organisations. This upbringing gave me a sense of pride in myself and my achievements, and a deeply held responsibility to help those who are less fortunate than I. My ongoing work with trade unionists, churchgoers, students and staff in school communities, tireless workers in the Country Women's Association, residents in nursing homes and other aged care facilities, students at university, fundraisers in Rotary, and recently arrived migrants is evidence of my commitment to social justice and to achievement of `a fair go for all'. Through my community based activities, I hear first-hand accounts of the impact of higher petrol prices and the burden of the BAS and GST on families and small businesses in Ryan. I also hear calls for reconciliation with the indigenous peoples of this land. Saying sorry will help us face our own past and plan for the future.Not everyone is so lucky, and I consider it my responsibility, as a citizen and as the representative of the electors of Ryan, to work towards the achievement of more progressive public policies, particularly in the areas of public health, public education, the environment and social justice. During the by-election campaign, I was proud to be given the opportunity to be the face of Labor in Ryan. Now I am even more proud to represent all the electors of Ryan as their local Labor member. I am thankful for the opportunity to make a difference. As their loyal friend, I will not let them down. Honourable members—Hear, hear!17:34:0027282Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—On behalf of colleagues on this side of the House, best of luck to the member for Ryan. I rise tonight to speak in support of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2001-2002. The government's budget this year is, in my view, a combination of some targeted spending that responds to a number of very specific local concerns in my electorate as well as investing in the longer term capacity and social fabric of our country. The Minister for Aged Care is here tonight, and I am pleased to be able to praise the minister for her contribution of additional aged care funding for my community—a popular retirement destination where people come to enjoy the beauty of the Mornington Peninsula. As has so often been the case since the coalition was elected, this budget represents further investment in aged care services within the Dunkley electorate. I am very pleased to be part of that and to be able to secure additional aged care places for the community that I represent. So congratulations to the Minister for Aged Care.Central to the budget is a reinvestment of the financial benefits of sound economic management. Often in this place we hear the Labor Party talking about how the Howard government has done this and done that, and cut this and cut that. It is always helpful to remember that they are talking about the forward estimates that were left to us by the former Labor government. It is very handy to think about these forward estimates, because in the last year when Beazley and his team had their hands on the Treasury coffers they managed to blow the budget by $10.3 billion. So, even in that most immediate of years in the last budget papers of the Labor Party, they were out by an enormous amount of money. It is always amusing for us on this side to think about what would be the accuracy of these forward estimates of the former Labor government. It is really quite pointless hearing from the Labor Party about what they would have done and what their plans were in the last year of the Keating government, because they were so far off the mark in that final year that the forward estimates amount to nothing more than fictitious nonsense. It is helpful to remind ourselves of that and then think of the restoration that the Howard government has had to achieve in terms of our economic position. We have been able to strengthen the economy, we have been able to cut taxes, we have been able to provide substantial funding for new initiatives and we have been able to look after those who are most in need of our care and support. We have put forward a whole new vision for the welfare system in this country—support older Australians and further strengthen the health system that the member for Ryan was talking about.It is interesting that it took a Howard government to expand Medicare for the first time in living memory. Those opposite talk about their commitment to Medicare but there is no action. They have a health policy that is carrying forward initiatives that the government has already implemented. There is a dearth of ideas on the other side and there is action on the coalition side.In terms of our environment, what an enormous investment our country through its government has been able to make in the restoration of our environment and natural systems. This budget contains a further injection of funds into the Natural Heritage Trust—a further $1 billion over the next five years—to continue this work to protect and repair our natural environment. Again, where is the Labor Party on that? We keep hearing these little rumours about how the Labor Party is going to find some money to spend on the things that it wants to spend on, and something that you often hear is that they are going to cut funds to the Natural Heritage Trust. You hear Senator Bolkus making comments about this and that at a very micro level, but he really needs to stand up and make it clear whether the Labor Party is going to continue that enormous, single largest investment in the restoration of our environment that gives cause to people like Senator Lyn Allison, the environment spokesperson from the Democrats, to describe this government as the best government the country has had in terms of restoration and care of our environment. As those initiatives flow through, that is an investment in our future. At a more immediate level, the budget contained a number of very important initiatives that have responded to some work I have been doing on behalf of the local community about the circumstances of lower income self-funded retirees. Mr Speaker, you would know that there are many lower income self-funded retirees whose disposable income is no more than a part-pensioner would have, yet the self-funded retiree is not able to access concessions and that sort of benefit that is made available to part-pensioners. We changed that a little while ago when we extended the eligibility for the Commonwealth seniors health card to lower income self-funded retirees and we have taken that a bit further in this budget with looking to embrace the telephone concession that part-pensioners have. They are very practical, helpful, meaningful things. Superannuants have gone without—they have been a little frugal during their working life to provide for their retirement. I think it is responsible government to reward those people, to show them that their behaviour is recognised and encouraged by this government, and there are steps afoot to do that in this budget.The Australians Working Together plan is simply visionary, courageous and just. There are more than 800,000 people on disability support pensions in our country. For some of these people, because of their conditions, the best assistance we can provide is for their care, support and comfort. There are also a number of disability support recipients whose condition may have improved or whose reasons for being on that pension may have changed and whose possibility of returning to work may be able to be enhanced over time. A soft tissue injury, for instance, is something that may affect a person's capacity to carry out a particular type of work. But these people have abilities and have a contribution to make, and I think we have a moral obligation to work with people to support and encourage their full participation in our community, to expand the opportunities available to them to rejoin the work force or to just be part of the things that are going on in our neighbourhoods, cities and communities through incentives, advice, development opportunities for them personally, and also a fair application of mutual obligation requirements. That is all in this budget. That is a visionary plan to help the people who have something to contribute, who may not be getting the support to assist them to make that contribution. We all know about the health conditions of people who are not engaged and involved in our community. Their health deteriorates and there are a whole range of other indicators that suggest that they are not enjoying all the fruits of living in this great country. There is a moral obligation there for governments to do what we have done, and we are leading the way with that visionary, courageous and just plan.I would also like to talk about the Scoresby transport corridor. I doubt that my colleagues find that unusual; I am regularly talking about the Scoresby corridor. On Mother's Day, the Prime Minister came to the eastern suburbs of Melbourne and announced the Scoresby transport corridor as a road of national importance.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr Brough—The best Mother's Day present.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—The best Mother's Day present for a million and a half people who live in that part of Melbourne—a population bigger than the entire population of Adelaide. That is not to drive home the point about the relative size of these cities, but that is an enormous community that is making a great contribution to our nation. This transport infrastructure will make a very real difference to the lives of people living in that area.Not everybody commutes to the central business district for their work. There are in that corridor a number of regional centres, hives of economic activity which need to connect amongst themselves. Not only have we made the declaration of the road of national importance but also the government pledged some cash—$220 million of cash. This budget actually puts that cash on the table. Over this and the following out years, $220 million has been put on the table by the Howard government to support that project. The announcement came not only with the designation of a road of national importance but also with an invitation to the state government of Victoria to match the Commonwealth, to put $220 million of state money on the table, so that we could then attract a further half a billion dollars from the private sector to construct this enormously significant piece of infrastructure. What has been the response to that? We have not actually had one. The state government of Victoria have been playing funny political games, which I have characterised as the conduct of reluctant converts. The state government in Victoria, the Bracks Labor government, actually campaigned against this project when they were elected. Through our advocacy, we were able to highlight what an unhelpful position that was for the future interests of not only the greater Melbourne area but particularly the eastern and south-eastern suburbs, including the Dunkley community. We have managed to turn that position around, and then begrudgingly the state Labor government in Victoria said: `Well, you guys are right. All the facts are there. The communities all want this project. Yeah, we really should do something about it,' and they announced a change of position. But they have done nothing since that. They have gone around claiming that they have put detailed propositions to the Commonwealth government, and that has clearly been proven to be a lie. They had not done that—they had sent up a glossy brochure and an environment effects statement. There was nothing about how the project would proceed. The fact that it was a lie that was perpetuated and that continued to be run through Melbourne media by the Bracks Labor government—in particular, perpetuated by Minister Batchelor—was proven when the transport minister of Victoria and the federal transport minister came together in the first week of January. Do you know what the outcome of that meeting was? They agreed to work together to develop a proposal. If that is not proof positive that there has never been a proposal on the table from the Victorian Labor government, I do not know what is.We have gone further. Since that time, KPMG have conducted a study on behalf of the joint officials, which was the group of Commonwealth and state officials brought together to look at funding options for the Scoresby transport corridor. The freeway component alone is a billion dollar project. I do not know of many governments that have a crisp billion dollars lying around to pay for something like that with cash and to front-end that money to see that the whole project is done. What we have done is pledge $220 million. It is committed and funded in this budget that we are discussing tonight. We are looking for the state to match us, to have a $440 million government nest egg from which we can go out and attract the balance of the funds from the private sector. That proposition has been proven to be achievable by the independent work from KPMG that has gone to the joint officials, a report that has also gone to the Victorian Labor government while they are running around saying, `Gee, we don't know what this public-private partnership is.' They have the report. They have a policy called `Partnerships Victoria' that says that these sorts of partnerships will be more common under the Labor government. The Financial Review of yesterday said that the Victorian government are crowing about their plan to increase the proportion of capital expenditure achieved through Partnerships Victoria to about $4 billion of their $6 billion capital works budget over the next four years. This article was saying that the New South Wales government is going to do the same thing and implement a policy that the Victorian Labor government already have. Yet when you talk about this project, you have the Premier of Victoria and the transport minister of Victoria saying, `Gee, I don't know what this is about. This is an idea that we just can't cope with. We're from the Labor Party. If someone is not paying for it out of taxes up front entirely or we are putting it on the taxpayer bankcard, we don't know how to fund these projects.' It is a pathetic example of how uncommitted the state Labor government in Victoria are. Tonight, I call on them to get serious about this extremely serious project. I call on them to have a look at their own policy, Partnerships Victoria, and realise that this is the way forward to complete the project. If we were able to construct the Scoresby transport corridor in the way the Labor Party wanted, we would be drip-feeding funding and seeing various incremental segments of it built. By the time I got to retirement age, it would probably be done. That is not the way to secure the benefits of this project. We want the whole thing built—from Frankston to Ringwood. We need the entire project completed in one sweep, as has been recommended by the Australian Council for Infrastructure Development, as we understand and recognise as the only way to secure the maximum benefits for the funding through this project. I say to the Bracks government of Victoria, `Let's get on with it. Let's stop playing funny buggers in the media about this.' You know exactly what this proposal is about. Let us get a $220 million commitment from Victoria, and the Commonwealth and the state government can work cooperatively on how to secure the private sector funding to complete the project. We can talk about how to do that— whether it is through performance based payments, through shadow tolling, through availability subscriptions to the private investor or, as it has been put to me, through making available some of the land use opportunities in the areas that adjoin the project as a way of having the private investors recover the money they put forward. I call on the Bracks government in Victoria to get serious about this project so we can get on with it. They can have a look at their own policies. I also want to touch on education briefly tonight. Many people from the Labor Party talk and talk and talk about education. Frankly, they do not do a whole lot about it. In Victoria, again, Minister Delahunty, the Victorian Labor education minister, had her budget described as a cruel budget—one of the cruellest education budgets the state of Victoria had ever seen. Contrast that with the substantial growth in funding for government schools that is in this budget we are discussing tonight, the continuing commitment of the coalition to the National Literacy and Numeracy Plan to make sure all our students have those key tools to develop themselves, to take opportunities in further education and to get the best out of their futures. I also mention the extra higher education funding through Backing Australia's Ability, the expansion of the apprenticeships system and the Jobs Pathway program. There is a wide ranging canvas of further investment in education.Contrast that with the position of the Bracks Labor government in Victoria. You have strike action. You have parents—right the way through from preschool years to secondary school—concerned about the lack of resources from that enormous pot of cash left to them by the Kennett government. Why was none of that invested in the education system? Do you know what the test will be, Mr Deputy Speaker? The test will be when we see what happens from Kim Beazley's budget reply. Remember that night we were here, hearing about all these things that the Labor Party were going to spend money on. This was after they had been caught out with Stephen Conroy, the senator, actually telling the truth. Remember the night when we had that speech? Kim Beazley stood at the dispatch box and said that the opposition will put extra money into education—ya, ya, ya, ya, and on he went. One of the initiatives he talked about was some funding that needed to be matched by state and territory governments. Won't it be interesting to see what actually happens with that commitment? I think he was talking about $50 million for school facilities and the like, to be matched by state and territory governments. My question is this: what is Victoria going to do? Is Minister Mary Delahunty going to match what Kim Beazley has pledged? Is she going to say, `Frankly, the state government in Victoria thinks there is no cash for kids. We couldn't find any in our state budget, but we'll find some for Kim.' Is it cash for kids or cash for Kim? Who knows? It would be miraculous if, all of a sudden, the Victorian Labor government could find money to help Kim Beazley and the Labor Party with their election campaign when they could not find money for the kids in the first place? Or are they going to come out and say, `No, no, we are not going to spend any of this surplus that has been left to us by the former Kennett government.' Then that just leaves Kim Beazley's education policy in tatters. Already one element is undeliverable. Why? Because the state and territory governments cannot pick it up. What a contrast. Both of those outcomes highlight the pathetic hypocrisy and lack of vision that the Labor Party have on education policy. Either the Victorian Labor government is happy to fund education if it is politically expedient for the Labor Party—but not for the kids—or it does not fund it and then Kim Beazley's plans are already in tatters. There is an interesting choice to be made there by those who are trying to assist the Labor government with its re-election. Before closing, I want to comment on one of the sorts of things that have concerned the Dunkley electorate. We still have on the table an offer of $500,000 to assist any state and territory government that wants to trial retractable syringes, so that any needle supply program designed to reduce the harm that injecting drug users are exposed to actually involves a technology that prevents the helpless and the innocent from being exposed to harm when needles are recklessly discarded in their community. We have not heard anything about a state or territory government coming forward to take up that offer from Minister Wooldridge, and that offer still stands. That is another issue that shows there is leadership from the federal Howard government but it is not being responded to by the state and territory governments.My closing comments are on the question that is on everybody's mind. We have heard, and it has been exposed, that Kim Beazley says he will not increase the overall tax burden on Australians if he is elected. We know that in these budget papers we are discussing tonight the tax burden as a share of GDP is actually trending down. The difference between where we are in the out years under these budget papers and where we would be under Kim Beazley is $3 billion. That is, Kim Beazley will be able to raise $3 billion more under what he is saying he will do, those weasel words that he says when he is not saying, `Oh, Laurie, Laurie, don't ask me tough questions. That is undignified.' When he is not saying that but he says, `We will not increase the overall tax burden—that is Labor policy,' that is a $3 billion extra tax burden that someone has got to pay. Who is going to pay that? Is there going to be a reintroduction of indexation on petrol? Are we going to bump up company taxes? Are we going to get stuck into the ordinary people who are now able to pay no more than 30 cents in the dollar in tax on their income, whom we have given the chance to invest in their future, pay a far more affordable mortgage and set themselves up? Are they going to cop it? Or are we going to see other indirect taxes messed around with by a Labor government? We need to keep the Labor Party accountable here because they stooged Australia in 1993 with the same sorts of weasel words. We need to keep the Labor Party accountable so that they cannot stooge Australia again and cannot destroy all the good work that has been achieved since the Howard government was elected. (Time expired)17:54:0027286Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—I was listening intently to the member for Dunkley. What rubbish, from a government that has been the biggest taxing and spending government in the history of this country, to put words in the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition and to suggest all sorts of scary things. The reality is that if anyone is going to be raising taxes it would be you lot, if we were to have the unfortunate situation that you were re-elected at the next election. To a large extent this budget has been about trying to pump back into the government departments and services money that has been drained out during the last six years by the coalition government. There is an election just around the corner, and the government are hoping that if they are seen to be reinvesting in research and development and redistributing funds in vital areas such as education then the Australian public will forgive their past transgressions and return them to office come polling day. But the Australian people cannot be so easily duped. The cuts that this government have made over the last six years have not gone unnoticed. Cuts to government spending are having a very real impact on the community. While bonus payments to age pensioners and tax cuts for self-funded retirees are welcome, they are not enough to repair the damage.Australian customs and quarantine services are to receive a significant funding boost under this budget. If you speak with one of my constituents, Mr Allan Stainer, who owns and runs Australian Garlic Bread International in my electorate of Bowman, he will tell you that this funding boost is much needed. But, as for many Australians, for Mr Stainer this budget move is too little too late. Mr Stainer runs a successful business. He employs 35 people, many of them my constituents, and his company can proudly boast that it is the largest producer of garlic bread products in Australia. Seeing an opportunity to expand his company, Mr Stainer decided to purchase some special automated bread making equipment earlier this year. He anticipated that the new machinery would not only increase his production levels but would generate up to 10 new jobs. As the baking equipment was only available overseas, Mr Stainer duly approached Customs to apply for the two per cent tariff concession. Customs granted this concession. However, when the equipment arrived in Australia, it arrived in three separate shipments. Customs then made the erratic decision that, because the equipment arrived on three different ships, they would no longer approve the tariff concession. The concession amounted to around $200,000, and Mr Stainer was advised that he would have to pay the $200,000 or Customs would retain the goods. In the meantime, Mr Stainer had made arrangements for five technicians to travel to Brisbane from France to assemble the machinery. At this stage Mr Stainer, in frustration, contacted his local member, who of course is me, and my office. I am pleased to inform the House that eventually we were able to negotiate with Customs and Mr Stainer received a special dispensation. In the end, 23 days elapsed between the arrival of the shipment and receipt of the equipment by my constituent. For 23 days Mr Stainer had to cover the unexpected expenses of pay and accommodation for the visiting French technicians. Then, to add insult to injury, Customs demanded that he pay container storage fees. By the time the shipment was finally released, these fees came to the staggering total of $13,000.This government insists that it is trying to do the right thing by small business. Yet this is just one example of a small businessman who has not only been let down but has been left considerably out of pocket by a system that is unresponsive to the needs of business. I call on the minister responsible to explore means of compensating Allan Stainer for the additional expense he has had to bear through no fault of his own but through a delay forced by Customs's fumbling. I also call on the minister to review Customs's procedures to ensure people like Mr Stainer receive assistance rather than obstacles when they endeavour to expand business and generate jobs for Australia. I particularly want to congratulate Mr Stainer. He is a man prepared to stand up for his rights, a man prepared to fight until such time as he got some justice, although it cost him money and time. If it were not for people like Mr Stainer, I do not think Australia would be the place that it is today.The celebrations for the Centenary of Federation this year have given all Australians the opportunity to rekindle their interest in learning more about our unique history as a peaceful, democratic nation and about those figures who have been responsible for moulding this country into the great nation that it is today. I wish to draw to the attention of the House in the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2001-2002 the achievements of one such great Australian: a great Australian who served the people of the electorate of Melbourne in this House for some 30 years; who led the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party through eight years and three elections; and who during his term as immigration minister during the postwar years urged Australians to `populate or perish', thereby changing the character of Australia's immigration program and ultimately altering the face of Australian society. I speak, of course, of Arthur Calwell, whose achievements were regrettably much maligned in the ABC television program 100 Years: the Australian Story that went to air earlier this year. Following the broadcast of part 2 of the series, which purported to follow the history of Australia's immigration program, I was contacted by Mary Elizabeth Calwell, who was rightfully distressed at the distorted image of her father that the program had presented. When she was originally approached by the ABC, Mary Elizabeth was happy to assist the series producers in collecting the documentation, film and sound recordings needed to create a clear and accurate picture of Calwell's aims and achievements during his time as immigration minister from 1945 to 1949. Yet, when the program went to air, much of the material Mary Elizabeth had referred to the producers was excluded, and many of the major achievements of Arthur Calwell's term as immigration minister were omitted.The depiction of Arthur Calwell in this series has not only caused insult to his family but denied Calwell the acknowledgment he rightly deserves as an early advocate for racial equality in Australian politics. During the Internet forum following the screening of the episode in question, the author of the series recorded the producers' intention to `depict Hanson as following from Calwell'. I believe it is incumbent on the ABC as our publicly funded national broadcaster to value truthful reporting above sensationalism. I hope that future ABC endeavours to document this important period in the history of Australia's immigration program will redress the imbalance of reporting featured in 100 Years.While Arthur Calwell undeniably worked within the constraints of the White Australia Policy, to compare him to the politics of division preached by Pauline Hanson—or even to refer to that in a presumptive way—is both misleading and irresponsible. It must be remembered that when Arthur Calwell was appointed the new Minister for Immigration in 1945, and for many years thereafter, the White Australia Policy enjoyed bipartisan support and the support of the Australian public. Two decades would pass before the Restrictive Immigration Act was repealed, yet Calwell enjoyed close ties with the Australian Chinese community. In 1941 Calwell made statements in parliament calling for provisions whereby Chinese residents could be naturalised and, in 1947, after holding consultations with the Chinese ambassador and in his capacity as Minister for Immigration, he made submissions to this end to the cabinet of the time.The postwar immigration program administered by Calwell represented the first significant move away from the Anglo-Saxon orthodoxy of the White Australia Policy. Arthur Calwell was criticised when the immigration regulations were amended to define the Middle East as part of Europe, thereby opening our doors to a broader cross-section of migrants. Under Calwell's postwar program, Australia welcomed migrants from Malta, Italy, Greece, Egypt and Lebanon, and he was responsible for instigating the program that saw the relocation of some 20,000 Jewish survivors of the Holocaust to Australia between 1945 and 1949.Perhaps the greatest indicator of Calwell's contribution as the architect of a more inclusive migration program and a more tolerant Australian society is the recognition and affection he is afforded by our many migrant communities. When Arthur Calwell's funeral procession passed through Melbourne, the Chinese community closed their shops and businesses in Little Bourke Street as a tribute, while his significant contribution to the Jewish community was recognised in November 1996 when the Jewish National Fund established the A.A. Calwell Forest of Life. In this budget, the government has earmarked nearly $5 million to be spent on a campaign to reinforce the value of citizenship to people who are Australians either by choice or by birth. Of course, it was Arthur Calwell who guided the Citizenship Act through the parliament, allowing Australians from diverse backgrounds to unite and be identified for the first time as members of an independent and cohesive nation. The ABC undertakes in its charter to inform and to educate. I would hope that in the near future our national broadcaster will have occasion to highlight the tremendous contribution Arthur Calwell made to the growth of Australia as we know it today.I would also like to bring to the attention of the House a situation, again in my own electorate, where the government, through its instrumentality Australia Post, is putting economic considerations above the health and wellbeing of employees in the Public Service. In March this year I was approached by a number of residents in my constituency of Bowman who are or have been employed at the Australia Post Business Centre at Dollery Road, Capalaba. The business centre is located next to an electricity substation, and the workers contacted me to alert me to their concerns about the high incidence of cancer and auto-immune related diseases amongst past and present employees. Some 11 workers have been diagnosed with cancer. Of those, four have passed away. Six workers have been diagnosed with potentially fatal auto-immune diseases. Four cases of chronic tension headaches have been reported, and in three of the four cases the headaches ceased when the sufferer left the employ of the post office. The people who came to see me originally with respect to this matter were Angie Adams—of whom I will talk in a moment—Valda Cole, Liz Humbles and David Kent. I mention them because they are very brave people. They are people who, like my constituent Mr Stainer, were not prepared to sit back and cop it. They wanted to see if something could be done about it, not so much to help themselves, because in most cases there is not a lot that they can benefit from, but rather to help those that are still working in that environment.I am advised that those affected make up about 20 per cent of staff employed at the post office since the business centre opened in Dollery Road in 1988. That is an enormous percentage: 20 per cent of all people that have worked in this one environment have ended up with problems. As I have said, if that is a coincidence, it is one hell of a coincidence. When this information was brought to the attention of Australia Post, I was pleased that they agreed to conduct an investigation into the possible causes of the health problems that staff and former staff were experiencing. Indeed, on 17 April Australia Post issued a press release indicating that tests on the radiation levels emitted by the neighbouring substation were well within safety limits. Yet since the story was reported in our local newspaper, the Bayside Bulletin, and in the metropolitan media, Angie Adams—who I referred to before—the spokesperson for affected staff members, has regretfully been inundated with calls from local business people and previous residents who have been affected by similar ailments. There are too many incidents of cancer related deaths and disease for this to be a coincidence. Despite the results of the radiation tests, staff are not satisfied and have voted overwhelmingly for the centre to be relocated.Australia Post has a responsibility, both to workers and to the many members of the public who do business at the centre daily, to institute a full investigation into this matter. Pending a full inquiry into possible environmental and workplace factors that could affect the health of staff, the centre and its services should be relocated. The potential cost to the health and wellbeing of staff must be the priority. Any financial costs associated with the temporary or permanent relocation of the centre pale in comparison. I have never before seen such courage displayed as that of the spokesperson for this group, Angie Adams. She is a terrific lady and I respect her very highly. I have not seen anyone who has gone to so much trouble and taken so much time not only to help those who are still alive that have been affected by the problems in that workplace but to protect others that are there now. Australia Post did carry out tests. It seems that the test results were normal. I accept that they have done that and I appreciate that they have done that. I am not being critical of them. Normally I never receive any complaints about Australia Post. They are very good. On this occasion, though, I think they are letting economic considerations get in their way. If there is any chance whatsoever that this place is somehow contaminated, even though we cannot put our finger on what it is, in my view we cannot gamble with people's futures and with their health. As I have said to them before: `Don't do it. Make sure that you get them out and make sure that everything is okay.'Mr Michael Choi, the recently elected member for Capalaba—he is a good friend of mine and is the first Chinese person to be elected to the Queensland state parliament—wrote to Bill Mitchell, the General Manager of Australia Post. He said:I write to thank you for forwarding a copy of the report released by Queensland Health dated 24 April 2001 and the subsequent report dated 2 May 2001, in relation to the Capalaba Business Centre.The report indicated that there is seemingly no evidence to conclude any linkage between the illnesses and the building.However, I do encourage Australia Post to continue its investigation, leaving no stone unturned.... ... ...The professionalism and imparity of the report is beyond question. However, maybe we should be mindful of the fact that science and medicine in nature, are a progressive knowledge, as we possess information today which has eluded us years before. In the fullness of time, perhaps there may be a reason for these illnesses, rather than a case of mathematical coincidence. I say this with the utmost respect for science and medicine as a qualified engineer.In view of the lack of confidence from the staff as indicated by their vote on 3 May 2001, and constituents who have also expressed concern to me, would Australia Post be prepared to consider the relocation of their building, so that this matter can be put to rest without having a shadow overcasting the staff and your customers for years to come.I look forward to your reply.I could not agree more with those words from Michael Choi.Finally, I want to bring up a case which is and has been of great concern to me in relation to the new cadet scheme. On page 5 of today's Courier-Mail an article, `Top army figure to overhaul cadets', said:A senior defence force officer will oversee Australia's 25,000-strong cadet service as part of a shake-up announced yesterday.Major-General Darryl Low Choy has been appointed the first director-general ...... ... ...In Queensland, the service has come under fire after two cadets died at training camps.Clare Stokes, 18, died when the faulty and overloaded vehicle she was travelling in overturned on a property in North Queensland in 1997.... ... ...Clare Stokes' mother Marie said: `If these reforms are carried out, Clare's death won't have been in vain.'Mrs Stokes said when her daughter died the Defence Force denied responsibility for the cadets.`In a sense we were deceived before by the fact we all believed they were all strongly connected with the Australian Defence Force,' she said.Mrs Stokes said the reforms appeared to clearly bring the cadets under the control of the defence force.From the day that Clare Stokes died, her parents, Paul and Marie Stokes, have been working very hard to achieve this end. Indeed, they have left no stone unturned by writing to everybody that they could. I took their case up and I have made certain comments and certain pleas in this parliament on their behalf. They have been unyielding in their efforts to make sure that their daughter's life was not in vain. I say tonight to them that the life of their daughter—that 18 years she had on this earth—has not been in vain. Because of their persistence, their obvious love for their daughter and their obvious grief for her loss—something to which I can personally relate—their daughter has really meant something because what they wanted to achieve has been achieved. I congratulate the government for taking action. They did it because there were a couple of deaths in Queensland. The second was another young person, who drowned. I say to the Stokes: well done; you are very good people and you have proven that two people can make a difference. 18:15:0027291Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—Proverbs tell us that where there is no vision the people perish and, were one to mistakenly listen to the professional cynics at large in our nation today, one might well imagine that this budget was a visionless artefact of a visionless government. In addressing the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2001-2002, I say nothing could be further from reality, because this budget focuses on the future, in that there is a focus on the social, health and environment areas particularly. Yet it seems to those opposite that it does not matter what vision the government might articulate or with what thoughtfulness, passion and frequency the Prime Minister, on behalf of the government, might hold forth that vision, for when we cut away the rhetoric of cynical commentary we find that, far from failing to articulate a considered vision of Australia as a nation of the future well recognising our past, the coalition have provided a stronger, more substantial vision for Australia than any other government for many years past.This is most pertinent, for when the cynics decry a lack of vision they do not mean to decry an actual vacuum for that vacuum plainly does not exist. Instead, they gnash their teeth at the realisation that it is not their vision. In part, this disconnection is related to the particularly liberal vision of Australian society articulated by the Prime Minister and by the Liberal Party. Liberalism is not a martinet or a drill sergeant: it does not demand that people, individual human beings, fall into line behind whomever carries the bigger stick. A former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, once said that leadership is not about being nice; it is about being right and being strong. But all too often he confused being right and being strong and being Paul Keating.In fact, it is no coincidence, as the Marxists say, that his prime ministership remains a nostalgic golden age for the commentariat, for the Keating government took the socialist propensity for the regulation of individuals and communities to a new low by attempting to impose its will or that of its leader on national culture and orientation. If Australia were not close enough to Asia, then Prime Minister Keating would make it so. If Australia were not sufficiently anti-British, the Prime Minister would make it so. If Australians could not grasp the importance of subsuming human rights to ingratiating oneself with one's neighbours, then the Prime Minister would do it anyway. His successors, the members opposite, have been but poor imitations: they forever march around talking about grandiose plans with grandiose titles, but with no detail and no substance, rather than concentrating on what it means to provide good government and opportunity for individuals and families.Liberalism offers an alternative vision, a vision of a nation in which governments err on the side of the people, a vision in which individuals and families are given the opportunities to pursue their own goals, not those of bureaucrats or of pseudoplanners. Liberal values give us a nation in which taxes are cut and burdens are lifted to encourage initiative, the work ethic and individual responsibility, a nation in which virtue is rewarded and every person is believed to have the potential to succeed and is not warehoused away in circuitous welfare and training.This budget, delivered by the Treasurer just two weeks ago today, is a budget based on liberal values and aspirations, values like low taxation, for this budget carries on the income tax cuts of 1 July 2000, the biggest tax cuts in Australian history. From 1 July this year, the corporate tax rate falls to 30 cents in the dollar. Australian businesses will save $2 billion a year—$2 billion of future investment, employment and growth. Financial institutions duty is abolished. This insidious tax leaches away at the savings of 12 million Australians. No longer will Australian families be taxed every time they deposit their own money in their own bank accounts, use their own savings to pay their own credit card bills or pay off their own mortgages. This measure will save Australians $1.2 billion annually. Likewise, we will see the abolition of state stamp duties on listed shares and other quoted securities. The measures that the government has introduced include the bringing forward of full input tax credits for the purchase of motor vehicles for registered businesses, a move that is going to see these businesses save over $600 million. But perhaps the most important tax cuts put forward by the government are those in relation to older Australians. Under the measures announced in this budget, a $300 lump sum payment—non-taxable—will be made to each older Australian who receives a pension or part pension. The low income age person's rebate and the pension rebate will increase and the Medicare levy threshold will rise. As a result, self-funded retirees of age pension age with taxable incomes of up to $37,840, if single, or $58,244, if a couple, will receive an income tax cut once they submit their tax return for this financial year. For example, for a couple with an annual income of around $40,000 this is going to mean a direct tax cut of $2,819.50. Self-funded retirees also benefit from the extension of eligibility for the Commonwealth seniors health card, which entitles holders to concessional pharmaceuticals, to all older Australians earning up to $50,000 for singles or $80,000 for couples. These same retirees are also entitled to a telephone allowance of $17.20 per quarter.I am very pleased to note that the Commonwealth intends to open negotiations with the states regarding the extension of other pensioner concessions to eligible self-funded retirees. For those between 55 and age pension age superannuation assets will be exempted from income support means tests. I also thank the Treasurer for resolving the question of the capital gains tax treatment of listed investment companies—a form of investment used by many retirees in the electorate of Curtin and indeed across Australia. The shareholders in listed investment companies which operate like managed funds now receive comparable tax treatment to investors in managed funds for distributions sourced from eligible capital gains. Such shareholders will benefit from the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount.These tax cuts will benefit many of the most deserving of our senior citizens, but there are some who have criticised this particular focus. I disagree with those critics, for I welcome all tax cuts as an opportunity to give back to people what is rightfully theirs as the product of their own labours. In my view, there is still much to do in reducing the burden of taxation in Australia, and this budget is a welcome step in that direction. The Liberal vision has a place for creative but constrained government, for where government has a part to play in our community it ought to play it efficiently and effectively. I welcome the federal government's commitment to the greatest environmental rescue package in Australian history. From 2002-03, Natural Heritage Trust stage 2 will build on the success of the initial Natural Heritage Trust by assisting communities to protect and repair their local environments. The $1 billion committed to stage 2 is additional to the already announced strategy for salinity and water quality and the $300 million remaining in the Natural Heritage Trust reserve. In the coming financial year, $275 million will flow to Natural Heritage Trust projects, including $83.8 million to Bushcare, over $69 million to the National Landcare Program, $35 million for the Murray-Darling 2001 program and $24.4 million for Coasts and Clean Seas, a program that has had a particular impact in Curtin. The western boundary of my electorate is the Indian Ocean— the iconic beaches of Cottesloe, Swanbourne, Floreat and City Beach—and the Coasts and Clean Seas program has stimulated community interest and a very active response in caring for our coastline. It is the sort of initiative, backed up by funding, that demonstrates our commitment to a better environment. The Commonwealth has allocated $8 million over four years to improve fuel quality and to cut the emissions of motor vehicles, along with $5.1 million in additional funding for the national pollutant inventory and $5 million to tackle dioxin and dioxin-like pollution. In fact, the 2001-02 budget indicates that the Commonwealth will spend a total of $1.62 billion on environmental programs.Just as the government has a clear commitment to addressing the externalities associated with the environment, so it has a clear commitment to assisting in research and development, where public investment is appropriate and effective. Budget 2001-02 formalises the substantial undertakings made in January this year as part of the Backing Australia's Ability program. Under Backing Australia's Ability, $2.9 billion over five years will enhance competitiveness and general economic performance by strengthening the ability of Australians to generate new ideas and undertake research, to accelerate the commercial application of ideas and to develop and retain skill levels.It is particularly pleasing to be able to run through the list of initiatives that will benefit Australians, initiatives that have been welcomed by the scientific and research community. We have the $40 million Commercialising Emerging Technologies program, the $100 million innovation access program to showcase Australian science and technology overseas and to develop bilateral agreements on technology, $78.7 million in funding for the biotechnology innovation fund, the expansion of the Cooperative Research Centres program by $227 million, a $736.4 million increase in the competitive grants offered by the Australian Research Council, $337 million for research project infrastructure, $246 million for infrastructure in our universities, $91 million for world-class centres of excellence in information technology and biotechnology and $155 million for our major national research facilities.The government has also allocated $151 million for additional university places, with a focus on mathematics, science and the information and communication technologies. This was intended to provide our students with the skills for the knowledge based economy of the 21st century. Furthermore, the budget provides for a premium tax concession rate of 175 per cent for additional research and development. So, combined with an education budget worth $12.44 billion for Australia's schools, universities and vocational educational facilities, these measures—which I have gone through in some detail—put a lie to the claim that somehow the government is not committed to education, innovation or a knowledge based economy. Our vision is clear, articulated and backed up by the necessary funding. In fact, the budget papers are a most useful means by which to lance the misconceptions put out by the opposition and their proxies in the press.Over 42 per cent of Commonwealth spending for 2001-02 will go directly to social security and welfare—a quite astonishing allocation of $67 billion in a single year. In fact, Commonwealth spending on health and education—areas in which the states and territories properly take the lead—is another $38 billion. That is a total of over $105 billion—or over $5,500 for every man, woman and child in this country—will go to health, education and welfare next year. At the same time, the GST revenues, directed to the states and territories, pay the wages of the police on the beat, the teachers in the schools and the nurses in the hospitals. If anyone can find mean-spiritedness in those black and white figures, they should give up public commentary for a brighter career in alchemy. There are other initiatives that deserve much greater attention than we can perhaps afford this evening, not least the restoration of war widows pensions for widows who remarried prior to 1984—a matter which I have taken an interest in on behalf of constituents over the past three years—and the ex gratia payment of $25,000 to former prisoners of the Japanese in World War II. The exciting reforms of Australians Working Together and the capital investment that we will see in the Australian Defence Force are also commitments to the future. This sixth budget has also been a model of fiscal responsibility. The Treasurer has delivered another budget surplus—the fifth in succession. That is a fine record and one for which he deserves much recognition, as well as deserving recognition for the commitment to repaying the Labor debt. Repaying debt to free up the interest payments for more productive uses and keeping the budget in surplus are significant achievements in the context of the reforms undertaken by a government with a vision that supports the aims and desires of Australians. The opposition, it seems, is back-pedalling on tax increases, but we all know that if Labor is to roll back the GST it will collect less tax. Yet Labor says that it will be spending the same, if not more, money. Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—Before the adjournment, I was referring to the fact that the opposition were back-pedalling on tax increases and the fact that we all know that, if Labor are to roll back the GST, that means they will collect less tax. Yet they say they are going to spend the same, if not more, on programs. The fact is Senator Conroy did not make a gaffe; he in fact got it right. Labor, if elected, will raise taxes—somewhere, somehow. I suggest we watch this space. We know it; they know it.This budget is for the new century, where the freedom and openness to which we aspire are best matched by a liberal vision for Australia and its people. I have confidence that in the years to come future historians will note well who were the visionaries and how wrong many of the cynics were. You will recall that in his budget speech the federal Treasurer recalled the words the first Treasurer, Sir George Turner, who delivered the first Commonwealth budget 100 years ago. On that occasion Sir George had said:... while we should spend all that is reasonably necessary for the purpose of defending and developing our country we must see, at all events in the early stages of our career, that there is no extravagance ...I understand that Sir George went on to confide that he hoped that the budget figures were correct, but he could not be too sure because he had to rely on the states for their accuracy! One hundred years later the federal Treasurer has delivered a sound budget which builds on the previous five budgets of the Howard government. It is the fifth consecutive budget surplus, as I mentioned previously, and that is a feat our country has not witnessed in at least three decades—a budget surplus that means, after paying off debt, after funding our fixed expenditures and after funding programs and the new budget measures, the national accounts are in surplus to the order of $1.5 billion.This year the Treasurer was also able to confirm that we have repaid over $60 billion of the $80 billion Commonwealth debt we inherited from the Keating-Beazley government. This means that, whereas the previous government had to find about $8 billion or $9 billion just to pay the interest bill on its borrowings, we have slashed the interest bill by $4 billion. When the former government was competing with home buyers and business to borrow money, interest rates went through the roof. By repaying debt, there is now an extra $4 billion. This was previously paid in interest but is now available for investing in areas of priority. We have done that in this budget in the areas of health, education, welfare and the environment.The budget has addressed a number of specific areas of need. Not every budget can possibly address every expectation of every group in need every year. However, over time and over a series of budgets a government can build a strong basis to meet our nation's current and future needs. Overall, the budget is prudent in positioning Australia for ongoing growth, low inflation, low interest rates, a modest current account deficit, increased exports and, potentially, a stronger currency. This will set a positive base for investment, including for domestic investors.Over the past six years the Howard government has ensured that the fundamentals of the Australian economy are strong. The fact that there are almost 800,000 more Australians in jobs today than five years ago illustrates the strength of the economy resulting from the coalition's policies. This budget is more than a plan for funding the government for the next year; it is a plan that builds on the past six years in readiness for the challenges of our second century as a nation. 20:04:0027295O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00— The appropriation bills we are debating in this House today give legislative effect to the Howard government's latest crude attempt to save its political skin. This budget is ample evidence for the astute commentator that this is a government in an advanced state of terminal political decay. For those who are students of the political process, the seeds of that decay were certainly not planted in this budget but in the deceit and lack of vision in previous ones. This crude and, some would say, politically obscene attempt to buy votes ahead of the federal election later this year is but one symptom of a desperate government in panic mode, confronted with the realisation that it has only itself to blame for its current political position.You can tell a desperate panic-stricken government by the way it seeks to arrogantly manipulate the voting intentions of groups like the elderly. This government seems oblivious to the deep sense of cynicism and betrayal that important groups in our society feel when they are so manipulated. But the telltale signs of terminal political decay for this government go back many years. They go back to the abandonment of ministerial standards by a Prime Minister who, before he was elected, portrayed himself as a paragon of political virtue by promising to lift them. We all know the dismal record of this government in this particular area. In its first term no less than seven ministers—and it should have been 10—hit the fence in scandal after scandal as the government was rocked by allegations of rorting and conflicts of interest. Another telltale sign of that political decay is when a national government governs for sectional interests and elites, while convincing itself in a prolonged bout of self-delusion that it is really governing for the many—in this instance `the battlers', in Howard government parlance. We have seen this in evidence with the massive amounts of money that this government has allocated to category 1 schools under its education funding formula.The accusation that this government is out of touch and governs for the big end of town is not a charge made by the opposition in isolation. It is a view expressed by government backbenchers and the view of the current President of the Liberal Party, Shane Stone, no less, who documented for posterity the rather perceptive political observations by Queensland MPs in his now infamous memo. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources is here at the table, and we know how colourful he can be at times with his language. It would appear that his honest perceptions of his own government—given that he is part of the government—made their way into the infamous Stone memo.Another important sign of that political decay is when a government lacks vision and direction and substitutes advertising for political substance and seeks to cover its political and policy tiredness and laziness by cultivating through the advertising medium an impression of political activity. This government has driven advertising expenditure to obscene heights at the Commonwealth level and has spent over $1 billion on consultancies and advertising over the three years to 30 June 2000. The government, in its desperation to convince Australians to accept a tax that the Prime Minister said he would never, ever introduce, and one the Australian public did not want, blew out the advertising bill on the GST alone to $210 million.The waste of this government is staggering. It is of little comfort to the hundreds and thousands of small businesses in this country which have been turned into tax collectors for John Howard and Peter Costello that, as they give up their precious family and business time to fill out their BAS and meet their legal requirements under the government's new tax system, John Howard and Peter Costello are indulging themselves in an orgy of expenditure on advertising and consultancies to save their political skins. Labor intends to halt the drunken sailor mentality that appears to now propel this government's advertising agenda. We intend to cut spending on consultancies and advertising by $195 million over three years and we will use it to fund the national fight against cancer, a disease that most Australian families have experienced first-hand somewhere in their lives. Probably the most telltale signs of the Howard government's political decay are the divisions that now rack the coalition leadership and the deep rifts that now exist between the Liberal and National parties coalition partners. Good government and fiscal responsibility require unity within the government of the day, yet we have seen with the Stone memo and the way that it was publicly released just how paper thin the veneer of unity between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer really is. When the Stone memo became public the political panic set in within the government. It is that political panic that has formed the backdrop to this big taxing, big spending Liberal budget, which has now reached new heights of fiscal irresponsibility.The now infamous memo by the Liberal Party president catalogued for the Prime Minister the advanced state of political decay his government is in. These are not the opposition's words; these are the words of the Liberal Party's number one political organiser and operative. How was the government described in the memo? These are not the opposition's words; these are the government's own words, the government's own description of itself. The Stone memo described the government as mean, tricky, dysfunctional and out of touch. A harsh and accurate description of the Howard government it is but really confirming for the Australian people what they already knew. Pensioners know how mean the Prime Minister is, because he undercompensated them for the impact of the GST. And they know how tricky he can be: he is the master of the non-core and the never, ever promise.We need to examine this memo, because it is quite instructive about the current state of the government. You might recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we had the dream team in opposition—`the young and the restless', as it was called—the Downer-Costello leadership team. We can hardly remember it, but there it was. We had the young and the restless. Now we have got the mean and the tricky. We have got the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, but we are not quite sure who is the mean one and who is the tricky one.I hear from a very reliable source at the Liberal Party—cash-strapped as it is, with its funds drying up, and the National Party the same—that they are going to put this saga on the big screen. You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that famous spaghetti western called The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. The Liberal Party is now going to put their saga on the big screen. It is going to be called `The mean, the tricky and the dysfunctional'. We have trouble with the casting. We know who the dysfunctional one is. That is the President of the Liberal Party, Shane Stone. He has displayed that dysfunctionality over a fair period of time in the Northern Territory parliament. But we are a bit worried about the casting of the other two. Is it Tricky John and Stingy Pete, or is it Stingy John and Tricky Pete? We are not quite sure who is who in this new drama.If you happen to look at the definition of `trickery', it means `magician'. We know the Treasurer is a magician. He can make a tax appear out of nowhere, even though he is part of a government that said it would never increase taxes or introduce any new taxes. He made these appear out of nowhere: the wine equalisation tax, the petrol tax and the new milk tax. He is a magician because he has made the surplus disappear before your very eyes. When you look at the state of unity within the coalition, you realise that it is rotting at the seams. Out there in voter land the Prime Minister can advance his bribes—and that is all this budget is: a crude attempt at bribery—he can do whatever he likes, but the polls are now reflecting how the people of Australia regard this thinly veiled attempt to claw back some political capital after the Prime Minister and his government have lied to them over the last five years and driven the boot into especially rural and regional Australia. The budget before us is an admission of political failure. What we have here is a document cast in political panic, designed with one objective in mind: to save the political skins of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. But for the majority of working people, pensioners, businesspeople and self-funded retirees, this is a budget that fails to deliver. Where are the initiatives in this budget to assist Geelong families to cope with the ravages of the GST on their income and the inadequate compensation that came through to them in the government's new tax package? Where are the real measures to lift the GST burden on Geelong's small businesses? The $300 to Geelong pensioners is, by itself, an admission that they were undercompensated for the adverse effects of the GST on their standard of living. It fails to deliver on the $1,000 promise that was made to them by the Prime Minister. For the benefit of the parliament, I will quote from two letters that I have received from pensioners in my electorate, one of whom I will name because I know the gentleman concerned, George Vansetten, who lives in Manifold Heights. He has documented for me the extent of the GST he has paid and the difficulty that he is having on a pensioner income coping with the ravages of the GST. Before July 2000 he was regarded as a low-income earner and he paid no tax. He has had a minimal pension rise over the period to compensate him for the impact of the GST. I will not mention the name of the pensioner who sent me the other letter, as I do not have his permission to do so, but he had this to say about the Prime Minister and the GST:... the Prime Minister stated on TV that the pensioner was generously compensated for the GST. This man either lives in noddy-land or is just a callous, cold-hearted individual. Whichever description of the Prime Minister is more apt, this pensioner has documented for me the extent of his GST payments since the GST was introduced. He has paid a total of $825.38 up to this point. A significant part of that was a payment of $567 to a funeral director's service on the death of his wife. If it was not enough for this pensioner to have this tragedy in his life, he has had to fork out GST on the funeral of his partner. When you look at the trend in that GST expenditure, you can understand why the pensioners in my electorate of Corio in the Geelong region are so disillusioned by this government and feel so betrayed. The promise that was made to them is but one of many promises that have been made by the Prime Minister and broken. The Prime Minister adds insult to injury to every Australian voter by saying that a promise that he made is a non-core promise. I was raised on a dairy farm. My father was a generous man, but he was a firm man. If I had said to my father that I had made him a non-core promise, there would have been hell to pay in our household. We know that the other measures announced in the budget aimed at self-funded retirees will be accessed only by one-quarter of them. The worst admission in this budget is the government's own assessment that the unemployment rate will remain at seven per cent over the next year. After nine years of growth in Australia, Geelong's unemployed, along with others around the country, face a declining prospect of improving their employment status. What the Corio electorate saw of this budget was not a vision for their nation but simply a crass attempt by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to buy their votes. Make no mistake: this is the highest taxing and spending government in Australia's history. The government is at its trickiest in trying to claim that the GST is not a Commonwealth tax. Of course, we know it is. When the $24 billion raised by the GST is counted in Commonwealth revenue, then the tax to GDP measure—the tax measure that the Prime Minister is fond of—is massively increased. The taxing record of this coalition government is quite extraordinary. In 1996 the Prime Minister promised that there would be no new taxes and no increase in existing taxes. The public record, courtesy of the Clerk of the Senate, now shows that in his first term the Prime Minister broke that promise 63 times. That was obviously a non-core promise. We now find that that figure is up to 114 new taxes. He also promised to simplify the tax system and to cut red tape for small business. Is it any wonder that small business cannot wait for the election so that they can pay out on the government? The tax act, once 3,000 pages in length, now runs to 8,500 pages. The new tax system has been amended some 1,800 times. No wonder small businesses in my electorate are tearing their hair out at the complexity of the new tax system. This budget, the first in the new century since Federation, presented the government with a unique opportunity to lay out some markers on its vision for Australia's future, and the government failed the test. In concluding, I might make some comment on the continuous bellyaching that comes from government members about the terrible years of Labor. Many of us here have a long political memory. We go back to the terrible years of Liberal rule when the Prime Minister was Treasurer. The Liberal Party left Labor with a double digit unemployment rate—can you believe it?—of 11 per cent. The Liberal Party left Labor with a double digit inflation rate, with double digit interest rates, with the highest level of industrial disputation on record and with one of the worst national savings performances in the industrialised world. It left it with an outdated, ramshackle, inward looking industrial base and it left Labor with a budget deficit. That was John Howard's legacy—a budget deficit in current dollars of $25 billion.What of Labor's legacy to the coalition? We broke the back of inflation, we brought the unemployment rate down to single digits from the Liberal Party's double digit figures, we did the same with interest rates, we modernised the economy and we lifted the government's national capacity to save. The government lost $12 billion, by market expectations, on the sale of the first tranche of Telstra. They have now blown $24 billion on a tax that nobody wants. It is a great vision for a nation in a new century to introduce a tax that belongs in the previous century. That is the extent of the coalition's vision, and the Australian electorate can't wait. (Time expired)20:24:0027298Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10— What I have just heard is the most remarkable rewriting of history—something that no person in Australia would recognise. Those who are listening would know that, if the Labor Party is so deluded as to think that the description we have just heard really describes the Hawke and Keating governments, they have no right or no chance of governing come the next election. They will remember the 17 per cent interest rates they paid on mortgages for houses and they will remember the 22 per cent interest rate on overdrafts for small businesses. Don't you worry; they remember it now.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—You keep repeating it.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—You say we keep repeating it. Of course we do. Everybody remembers it. Why do you think the economy slowed before Christmas? People were fearful that we would go back into those days of high interest rates. They saw the Reserve Bank moving interest rates up by half a per cent at a time. Five changes in interest rates—not always at half a per cent—were enough to send waves of concern through those who were buying homes or those who were paying off loans, whether they be on farms, in small businesses or on hire-purchase for home acquisitions. People in those circumstances are very sensitive to high interest rates. Australians remember the high interest rates of the Australian Labor Party.The budget we are debating tonight is based on sound economics and on sound success. Not only that, but it offers a sound, competent and well thought through future. It does not do the smoke and mirrors trick that the Leader of the Opposition endeavoured to do in his speech in response to the budget. For instance, it did not say that, by taking all of this money away from extremely wealthy schools—and wealthy individuals—and giving it to public schools, we are going to save a lot of money. That is 0.3 per cent of the total federal education budget. Does the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesman for education really think that they are going to have much impact on education with such a tiny amount of money? One wonders whether or not this is a denial of choice. One thinks that it is an un-Australian return to saying, `We, the federal government, will judge the rights of Australians as to where they will send their kids to school.' I have many people in my electorate, as you have in yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, who want to back the future of their children by forgoing their own. They are prepared to make sacrifices for their children. They are prepared to go without. So what right does any government have to judge whether a person is capable of paying school fees at Australia's wealthiest school or whether they want to send their children to the local public school? Governments have no right to prejudge the wellbeing of parents, what aspirations they may have or whether or not they can afford to go without. That is a matter for the parents of the children who aspire to a better future for their kids.The member for Werriwa advanced a very interesting theory, which I read in the press, saying that the way in which the Commonwealth government has made an assessment of the socioeconomic status of people for assessing support for non-government schools should also be applied to public schools. It is a very interesting concept, if you read through it to see how it is developed. The Commonwealth takes collector districts—the smallest unit used by those surveying for a census—and averages the household incomes for that small group of 200 or perhaps 400 homes. No household is identified. The federal government, by the address of a parent, is made aware of the average income for parents in that district. So, for the first time, schools are funded on the basis of the parents' income. It is not a process where the site of the school is assessed. It does not matter whether the school is in the middle of the city or out in the bush. It does not matter whether the school is in the outer suburbs or in the salubrious suburbs. All that matters is whether or not the incomes of parents total a certain amount which will earn them a subsidy in support from the federal government, which is roughly only five-eighths or 60 per cent of what a public school student would get, on average.The member for Werriwa has proposed that, if this process is to be applied to non-government schools, then surely the same process should be applied to government schools. When parents decide—even though they could well afford the most expensive schools—to send their children to the public system and then back that decision by huge voluntary fees to the school so that the school can have a swimming pool, playing fields, computer rooms and everything because the parents can afford to pay and because they want to back public education with their own dollars, the honourable member for Werriwa says that we should assess the wellbeing of those parents. He says we should have a look at their incomes and see how wealthy they are and we should force the state governments of Australia to cut funds to state schools where there are wealthy parents and increase them where there are poor parents. I have not heard a single person from the Australian Labor Party with the courage to carry what they claim is their policy for non-government schools into the public school area. They are not prepared to stand up for equality across the board. They will target people who want to send their kids to wealthy schools, and that is the parents' choice. It is un-Australian for the Australian Labor Party to say, `We will judge whether a parent has a right to choose a school; we will cut funds to those schools where we consider wealthy parents send their children.' That is a judgment you cannot and should not make. Many parents in rural areas make sacrifices through no choice of their own, often because schools are not available. If some parents feel, for whatever reason, be it right or wrong, that by paying additional money their children will have a better education and better prospects, it is their decision. It has always been an Australian's decision. We have been through that argument before in Australia's history and it looks as though the Labor Party want to go through it again. What is the Leader of the Opposition raising? He is raising partly a sectarian debate. He is also raising a debate of envy. He is raising a debate about people's feelings, separation and difference within our community—a debate that has been settled long ago, and it was settled on this basis: if a person pays taxation, they ought to be able to have some contribution made to the education of their children. If they choose to pay fees on top of that funding from a government, it is their choice and nobody else's choice. No government can stand over people and say, `You shall not pay fees,' or `Because of the limitation we place on the amount of fees you can pay, we will limit government funding so that, the more you pay, the less we are going to fund, until we get to a point where we are going to make a judgment that you are worth nothing, you contribute nothing to Australia and we do not care about your kids.' If you want to run to an election campaign saying you do not care about any kids in Australia, I think you are running a great risk, because the next question is: what group of kids are you going to chalk out of your assessment next? Are they going to be the kids in certain suburbs? Are they going to be the kids in certain schools? Are they going to be the kids of a certain ethnic background? Are they going to be girls or boys? That decision would be made on the whim of whether the Australian Labor Party feel certain people ought to be supported or not. That is un-Australian. It is unconscionable and no Australian will accept such unfair treatment. It is an Aussie's choice, it is an Aussie's decision, to send their children to the school of their choice. If they do that through sacrificial giving to that school, that is their decision.While I am talking about the relationship between state and federal governments, it is interesting to note that Mr Aquilina in New South Wales has not been able to back the public education system in that state with the same confidence as the Commonwealth has. The Commonwealth government has funded schools in New South Wales at an increased rate of 5.2 per cent in this budget; New South Wales can only struggle to raise an increase of about two per cent. What are they doing? They are living off the back of the Commonwealth. They are prepared to let us fund their schools at a greater level than they are—at an increased level that they are not prepared to match. Yet they are prepared to take a billion dollars out of the tax system by wiping out the BAD tax. The Commonwealth government has written off the financial institutions duty and that has gone. That was agreed to long ago. The New South Wales government is prepared to take out the other tax. It is awash with money. The states have got so much money from the GST that every state government is giving away funds for projects of hundreds of millions of dollars. One only has to read through their state budgets, whether it be Victoria or New South Wales, to see exactly how much money they have to spend. The GST is a tax for state governments, it is a tax that state governments are using. This is not a government that has played by trickery; this is not a government that has been difficult with people. This is a government that has made decisions, kept its promises and moved ahead. What we see in the Australian Labor Party are people who are prepared to play with people's education, play with emotions and promise nothing except a big gabfest about what they might do with taxation. People all the time know exactly what the Australian Labor Party has done in the past with taxation.I know that most Aussies are aware that the economy is sound. The interest rate scare that they got before Christmas has now settled down and they are happy with the way things are moving ahead. They are backing the Australian economy and their decision making with a great deal more confidence. It is interesting to know that we are again going to have a surplus this year—$1.5 billion. It is one of five successive surpluses and the prospect for future surpluses is also good. What does that mean? It means we are paying our way. It means that every year we are not spending as much as we gather in. It means we are paying off our debts as well. We have paid off so much of the rotten debt run up by Paul Keating—the most miserable Treasurer that Australia has seen and the person who was most inflated with his own ability of all the Treasurers that I have seen. We have paid off so much of his debt— and the debt that the current Leader of the Opposition agreed to as finance minister, I have to say—that we are now not having to pay interest amounting to $4 billion a year. That is $4 billion a year that we do not have to pay back. That is what debt runs to. Everybody who has an overdraft and everybody who is paying off their house knows what debt does: you have to keep paying it back. It is a drag on your purse week in and week out. It prevents you from having those little luxuries; it prevents you from doing the things that families plan to do; it prevents holidays and it prevents making life a lot more pleasant. That is what was done to the Australian people. A big debt was run up, and with this big debt there was a continual drag of about $8 billion or $9 billion per year out of our pockets. That payment was about equivalent to what we spent on education and was about equivalent to what we spent on defence—every year that extra cost came out of our pockets. Half of that repayment is gone and for that I am really appreciative, because that means that for the first time we are starting to have a significant impact on the lives of people.We are able, for instance, in this budget to afford a simplified tax system for small business. We are able to support government schools with an additional $238 million over four years. Our funding for government schools has grown by 42 per cent in the time that we have been in government. It means that in our health programs we have been able to strengthen Medicare and the health system. There is an additional $900 million to improve access to primary care services— boosted, targeted funding for quality primary care and ensuring safer use of medicines. There are increased GP health services. We have been able to do all of these things because we no longer have to pay off the debt that we have had in the past. The budget supplied tax cuts of a significant nature—$5 billion next year in tax cuts. There are full input tax credits on motor vehicles for small businesses, company tax rates are down from 34 per cent to 30 per cent, FID is gone and stamp duty on share transactions is abolished from 1 July, fuel excise is reduced by 1½c and fuel indexation is wiped out altogether.As for older Australians, they deserve it. I know that when they do their sums some older Australians get so worried about their future, but this government has tried honestly and sincerely to make sure that their out-of-pocket expenses are covered. I have spent hours in my office with elderly people, going through their accounts and looking at where the money has gone and what the GST factor has been. I have to say that, with the best will in the world, some of the things the Labor Party is saying here are just not right. We had to go through the accounts piece by piece, item by item. What so many people in the Labor Party forget is that there is no GST on food but, of course, they always add on the GST for food purchases. There is no GST on food. The compensation has been fair. I would not say that it has been generous, but it has been fair. The $300 is generosity. That is something that was not asked for—it was not expected and should not have been expected, because nobody was led to believe that they should expect any additional money. The $300 goes to people on the age pension or a part pension.For people who are independent retirees, there is a tax rebate taking their tax-free threshold to $20,000 if they are single and up to $32,612 if they are married. What a change there has been in the taxation system for self-funded retirees. There is an increase in the income threshold for the seniors card. There is an income test of $50,000 for single incomes and $80,000 for couples for the seniors health card. Some of the benefits for people in this budget are just amazing. When people have come into my office, we have gone through their affairs in a confidential manner. It is very interesting to find that some people who expected that they would get nothing were quite surprised by the amount they receive. One instance I remember concerns a man who is just on 60 years of age and is on, I think, part compensation and superannuation. He looked as though he was not going to get anything because he is under retirement age. But then we looked at his superannuation and realised that there is no assets or income test on superannuation for people who are aged between 55 and 65. That is a big benefit to this man—it increased the amount of pension that he would receive, which would make his life much more pleasant. This budget is gradually being understood by older Australians as they come to count the dollars. From 1 July, they will have this welcome change and they will see for themselves the change that has come about. No, I will not accept the arguments of the opposition that this budget is not good for Australia. It is an excellent budget. It is well-balanced, it builds a sound foundation for the future and it gives back the benefits of five years of hard work, because people have come out of dire circumstances and a very fragile situation. We have survived a crisis that our near neighbours have suffered. We are building for the future in a most significant way and we are not going to adopt the mean and tricky attitudes of the Australian Labor Party, or even respond to them, because our future, we believe, is an honest and sound future. As in education and as in everything else, we are building a way that all Australians can be satisfied with, not a process that adopts envy and lack of choice. (Time expired)20:44:0027302Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—John Howard and his government are trapped in a time warp. This is not a new revelation; indeed, I have said before in this House that John Howard's prime ministership is not about the future of our nation but about the Prime Minister's past. The problem is not just that we have a Prime Minister who is stuck in the past; it is that he wants the rest of Australia to stay back and keep him company. This is a government for which time has stood still. Unfortunately, for the rest of Australia time does not stand still. Many things have changed since the 1950s and 1960s. The world is now a much less certain place, and the Australian dream of the quarter-acre block with the white picket fence is becoming less and less a reality for many Australian families. Tonight, in addressing this budget, I wish to concentrate, as the shadow parliamentary secretary for housing for the Labor Party, on the housing crisis which is increasingly evident in Australia. Labour market changes, especially the casualisation of labour, rising house prices in areas of high unemployment and uncertain interest rates, have led to a rapid decline in home purchase. At the same time as people feel they cannot afford a mortgage, demand for housing is increasing as the demographics of Australian households change. Between 1986 and 1996, the number of single-parent households doubled in this nation. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has decreed that, by the year 2021, there will be over one million single-parent households. So demand for affordable housing is increasing and affordable housing supply is at an all-time low. For the first time in the postwar period, home ownership in Australia has fallen below 70 per cent, previously thought to be the benchmark under which it would never fall. Australia has only six per cent public housing. This is the second lowest rate in the OECD, beaten only by the United States. This lack of public housing has led to an increased reliance on the private rental market to deliver housing outcomes. The private rental market in high employment areas is unregulated and overpriced. In areas of low employment, rental properties are often of a very low standard. The government has provided no incentives for landlords to invest in the affordable housing end of the market. This means that those needing access to affordable housing are faced with the unenviable choice of rents that are sometimes half their income in order to be close to employment and infrastructure facilities or more affordable rents in areas of low employment. Added to this is the fact that this government does not encourage people to seek affordable housing. You can be breached in terms of your social security payments simply for moving into a low employment area. Many Australian families are caught in a vicious housing affordability cycle. These families have two options. On the one hand, they can live where they can afford, but lose their benefits, be breached and virtually have no chance of finding work. On the other hand, they can live where they are forced to pay up to 60 per cent of their income in rent, retain any benefits that they have while looking for employment but struggle simply to make ends meet and to put food on the table for their family.This government has launched an assault on affordable housing in Australia. It has launched an assault on low income Australians. The sixth budget in a row by the Treasurer on budget night made no mention of the word `housing'. One would have thought that we have three essentials in life: housing, health and education. But under this government one of those strands is missing. One of the things that keep the table standing up has been removed, so that Australians can have decent living standards and have food on that table. This assault leads to only one thing, and we are unfortunately seeing it in the form of increased poverty and increased homelessness. Figures released in November 2000 by the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare reveal that Australia's homelessness crisis is worsening. The figures show that, during 1999-2000, supported accommodation assistance programs were forced to assist 90,000 homeless Australians on 157,600 separate occasions. What is more chilling is that the figures reveal that 67,100 children accompanied adults who required access to homelessness services, an increase from the estimated 45,000 to 55,000 children who were forced to seek homelessness services just one year previously. Figures released by ACOSS reveal that the breaching of job seekers by Centrelink has gone up by 250 per cent since 1997. This government, in these budget papers, seeks to receive an extra $212 million in revenue by applying penalties to these vulnerable Australians who are job seekers. The government is unrelenting against the most needy and vulnerable in our community. Charities are under pressure, homelessness services are overloaded and poverty is increasing. Homelessness requires a whole of government approach. This means a holistic approach to income support arrangements, SAAP, health policies, employment, education and training opportunities, and affordable housing strategies. Homelessness cannot be solved through simply increasing funding for supported accommodation and social housing—not that this government has been prepared to do that. While increased funding for SAAP is a necessary prerequisite, it is not the end of the story. A common flaw in the way we approach public policy is that we tend to put issues in boxes and develop strategies within those boxes. We think in terms of programs, so that SAAP is quite distinct and isolated from employment services. And then employment programs are quite separate from education and training. This denies the reality of the client base and leads to the ridiculous situation where the client of an SAAP funded service is also a client of Centrelink and Employment National, but there is no will from this government to encourage these services to develop a coherent joint approach to assisting that client. In the eyes of this government, that client is three different file numbers in three different programs rather than one human being in need of coordinated government assistance. The Howard government's much lauded National Homelessness Strategy, released in May last year, was yet another example of the government's `all talk, no funding' approach to the issue of homelessness. The strategy did not pledge one extra cent to the fight against homelessness. The prevention section of the government's discussion paper simply listed programs that had already been announced and had already been allocated funding in either the 2000 or 1999 budgets. Not one new initiative was announced, not one extra cent of funding was allocated. In 1999, the SAAP program underwent its third extensive national evaluation process. Consultations were undertaken all over the nation, including discussions with homeless people. The evaluation showed growing demand for homelessness services and made recommendations about how the government could deal with this demand. The National Homelessness Strategy, however, simply called for yet another series of community consultations. Youth homelessness strategies under the Howard government have likewise been more media opportunity than genuine commitment to tackling the problems of youth homelessness.The government's youth homelessness strategy or—as it has been rebadged—the Reconnect program, has now been announced seven times, between them, by the former minister, Senator Newman, and the Minister for Community Services, Larry Anthony. The 1999 federal budget pledged $60 million to the project. This represented a grand total of $1.30 per homeless young person per day. Senator Newman announced the details of the Reconnect program in December 1998, twice in May 1999, in September 1999 and again in October 1999. Larry Anthony announced it again, in May 2000. And guess what? The other morning there it was again: on Tuesday, 29 May 2001, Larry Anthony announced the Reconnect program, for the seventh time. If only funding multiplied by the number of announcements that the government made, then instead of $60 million the government would be funding $420 million. Every time the government reannounces this program, I get calls in Parliament House or in my electorate office, saying, `What's this? I hear there's another $60 million being added by the government for youth homelessness.' I think, `Well, that's good,' and I get ready to respond that the Minister for Community Services has done the right thing by young Australians. But every time I am disappointed, because it is the same $60 million being reannounced— seven times!The funding commitment to young people at risk of homelessness can only be seen as a tokenistic response to the report of the Prime Minister's own Youth Homelessness Task Force once we look at the attacks on education, training and employment services that have occurred under this government. When the Prime Minister came to power in 1996, we had an income support system for young unemployed people that actually recognised that they became independent well before the age of 21. We had a range of labour market programs that provided accredited training and realistic pathways for young people. And we had intensive case management services for young unemployed at risk of becoming long-term unemployed. That is something the government have just discovered, that intensive case management might be a good idea, after they have dismantled all that infrastructure, all those skills of the workers who were committed to helping people find jobs in our society.Now, all of a sudden, as part of the welfare reform review, the government decides that maybe case management is a good idea, that maybe we need that individual support. It is a bit late for this government to find compassion and to be taken seriously. It is, yet again, an opportunistic example of this government adopting essentially Labor's program, but too late to fool an electorate that long ago decided that this was a government that had spent its value to the Australian community. Those initiatives that Labor put in place were still in the early stages in 1996, but we were moving in the right direction. Working Nation was a program that Labor can continue to be proud of. By contrast, the current government is a government that makes policy on the run. More insidious is the amount of money the Howard government has cut from the sorts of programs that provide long-term solutions for homelessness.The Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement is one of the greatest legacies of Labor. The first CSHA was made in 1945 and provided 280,000 new homes for Australians on modest incomes. Today, it continues its valuable role as a specific purpose payment from the Commonwealth to the states for the purpose of providing social housing. Now it is more important than ever because Australian governments desperately need to address the problem of the lack of good quality, affordable housing. Since this government came to power they have done the opposite. When Labor left office in 1996, the CSHA was funded to the tune of $1,062 million. By 1997-98, the Howard government had reduced funding to just $825 million. Much of this decline was due to the states agreeing to become part of the Commonwealth debt reduction program and pay their share through a reduction in CSHA funding. This loss of funding was only exacerbated by the 1997-98 budget when $101 million was cut from total expenditures. The CSHA has recovered slightly since, but only as a result of the deal the government did in order to pass the GST. The Democrats insisted that the states be paid some compensation for the increased costs of the GST. But when this compensation cuts out when the current agreement ends in 2003, the total expenditure of the CSHA will fall by $90 million in one year. Unless this compensation is renegotiated into the next CSHA, public housing will be a big loser. But it is not just the Commonwealth-state housing agreement that has suffered under the Howard government. SAAP is still not funded so that it can meet current demand. In April 1999 the government sponsored an evaluation undertaken by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, which recommended a 25 per cent increase in funding for SAAP in order to service existing demand placed on the sector. The national evaluation report on SAAP recommended that base funding be increased by 25 per cent and that after the one-off 25 per cent increase in base funding there then be indexation of funding annually to cover inflation, SAAP worker award adjustments and the impact of the GST. The government has since decided that worker award adjustments are a matter for the states.In the 2000-01 budget, the federal government allocated an extra $22 million per year to SAAP, which amounted to an 18 per cent increase. The problem is that this has not been spent on new services. Even the $15 million per annum deal has allegedly been used only for award increases. Sector representatives have complained that, once this is taken into account, it results in only a 7.7 per cent increase in funding. Despite this increase in funding, the government has made no announcement of new services and no announcement of new beds. Departmental representatives talked of the increased funding being absorbed by new directions in programs, and award increases. Increased funding should be about growth in SAAP services: more beds, greater support for diverse accommodation assistance service models, the trialling of other innovative approaches to early intervention, and assistance for homeless people—both while they are in crisis and in their transition to stable housing.Where the government has truly failed—in perhaps one of the greatest miscalculations of all time—has been in its treatment of permanent residents of mobile homes and boarding houses. These are the same people who are identified in the government's national homelessness strategy as being `at great risk of homelessness'—identified by the government itself. But this stubborn government at first said that the GST would not apply and lied to the Australian people. When it did apply, the government then said, `Oh well, the GST on site fees isn't the same as rent; so it's okay: Australians who live in this form of accommodation won't be worse off.' The Prime Minister said on AM that it is okay, because the GST has to be applied because of all the services provided to residents in this form of accommodation. The Prime Minister actually said that not only did these people get electricity, carpet, garbage services and everything provided by the owners but they had their mini-bar restocked.That is the problem with this government. The government did not and does not understand that these people live in this form of accommodation due to economic circumstances. I am sure they would prefer to live overlooking Sydney Harbour in Kirribilli: if you rent a house there, in Toorak, in Adelaide or overlooking the Brisbane River, you do not have to pay GST on your rent. But if you are an Australian battler living in a residential park, you do have to pay GST. And who are these people? Fifty-three per cent of people living in mobile homes earn less than $300 a week, 40 per cent are aged over 60 years, and 73 per cent do not have paid work. These are retirees and low-income Australians. The government's response was to introduce compensation measures in terms of rent assistance, but 97 per cent of these residents did not get one cent. They then leaked in the lead-up to the budget that this problem was going to be fixed. The member for Page went on AM on the morning of the budget and said that he and Larry Anthony, the member for Richmond, had campaigned and were going to get assistance and that they were hopeful of a positive response. Well, it shows how ineffective those members are, because the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, from their comfortable seats in Bennelong and Higgins, ignored what regional Australia had to say. The message was, `If you want to get this problem fixed, vote for Kim Beazley, vote for the Labor Party, because that is the only way this unfair tax will be removed.' (Time expired)21:04:0027306Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am pleased to rise to support the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2001-2002 and the package of bills before the House tonight, because they are the bills which ignite the very sensible measures brought forward by this government in the latest budget, the sixth budget that has been devised by the hard-working team surrounding the Treasurer, Mr Costello—a budget which has been very good for many Australians: very good for small business, for families and for older Australians. Of course, it is quite shocking to know that Young Labor described it on 22 May this year in this way: `It is very clear that this budget is an old fogy's budget.' We on this side of the House do not see it that way and we also resent the expression from the Young Labor movement, which is not being contradicted by the Leader of the Opposition, regarding what this budget is all about.This budget is all about reward for effort, about paying a dividend to Australians who have worked very hard over a long period of time, particularly over the last few years as we have worked hard as a government to repay the debt accumulated in the last five years in particular of the failed Hawke-Keating-Beazley governments. That is really at the heart of so many of the arguments that we hear from those opposite, like the member for Grayndler, whose position on so many things comes from a very sound philosophical base; but of course the practical applications of his philosophy leave many points of conjecture. There is no doubt that all of the things that he aspires to see returned to the budget may in fact have been possible to maintain in a budget position that had not been $96 billion in the red when we came to office in 1996. Over the past five years we have been able to repay nearly $60 billion of that $96 billion Beazley black hole that was left for this government to contend with.It is interesting to note, because I share concerns about public housing myself, that, as the member for Grayndler remarked in his contribution to this debate, it is for Australian governments, plural, to meet the cost and the expectations of a most basic need and right, I believe, of Australian people: the right to accommodation, a right that many afford themselves but that some do not have the power or the capacity to afford; and we as taxpaying Australians do not begrudge the opportunity to contribute something towards maintaining a roof over the heads of those in need. But it is Australian governments which need to meet the cost of that.It is against that background that I can understand a great deal of the angst of the member for Grayndler, but I remind him to check the performance of one government alone—the Beattie government in Queensland—which has made a deliberate policy decision to give priority welfare housing to those who travel to this country illegally. The temporary protection visa recipients are currently at the top of the list for welfare housing in Queensland. That puts great shame on that government for a number of reasons. There are a lot of underprivileged Queenslanders who are waiting for the right kind of accommodation but who are being bumped down the list by a deliberate policy move by the roguish minister Schwarten in the Queensland government to give temporary protection visa recipients this welfare housing ahead of Australians who are legally and lawfully here. People who are temporary protection visa recipients are all too often those who have been able to afford to pay $US5,000 or $US20,000 to criminal elements in other parts of the world to smuggle them to this country. They then claim, ahead of Australians, who I believe have a higher right on the list of expectations, for access to welfare housing. The member for Grayndler's points are understood. But it is Australian governments—not just the Commonwealth government—which need to contend with these issues concerned with welfare housing. It is important to note that any of the programs that are highlighted by those opposite are programs that were cut to meet the cost of the huge debt that the Australian Labor Party's mismanagement of the economy left for this government to contend with. It is worth knowing that the budget bottom line in 2001 is rescued from $4 billion in debt interest payment each and every year as a result of this government's deliberate process of retiring the accumulated government debt of the Labor years. That is $4 billion more to spend on the real needs of Australians, not on repaying only interest on the debt that those opposite have left.Proper economic management should pay dividends to the people of Australia. That is why the government in this budget has been able to pay for measures in today's money— not borrowing against future taxpayers' expectations—has been able to meet new initiatives, such as the $20,000 tax-free threshold for self-funded retirees above the retirement age, and has been able to meet the $300 non-taxable payment for pensioners. All age pensioners above retirement age are going to be paid $300 each, and it is going to be done in a retrospective way. This would be the only retrospective tax measure that I would happily vote for, and that is why I am pleased to speak on this bill. This $300 non-taxable bonus is paid before 30 June in the same way as the $20,000 tax-free threshold is delivered to self-funded retirees this current financial year and from this point on. Over two million Australians are going to benefit from this decision. What is best of all about that is that 18 million other Australians are not going to be burdened with a greater level of debt in order to meet this new commitment from the government.During its time in office, this government has been very good for pensioners and for self-funded retirees. It has lifted the tax-free threshold from $5,400, which the Australian Labor Party thought was enough for self-funded retirees, up to a mark in the tax sand equivalent to the age pension, up again to around $13,000 when the new taxation system started on 1 July last year, and up again to $20,000. What this says to those who are not self-funded retirees, those who aspire to be the self-funded retirees of tomorrow, is that there is a sense of reward for the effort of putting aside for your retirement. There is something that will come your way when you turn 65. Fewer people are now going to be in the taxation system. There is going to be less worry and less concern for those above the age of 65 as far as meeting their commitments of taxation and their involvement with government is concerned. Fewer people in the tax system means that those in the tax system are going to be better served or better scrutinised, if you like, by the tax officials in this country. To liberate those in their older years from the burden of this involvement will in itself pay some real social dividends.As well, the Commonwealth seniors health card is being extended to 50,000 older Australians. We have increased the income threshold to $50,000 for singles and to $80,000 for couples, which simply means that more people who have been on the edge of despair, not quite qualifying under the old rules and never qualifying under the rules that the Australian Labor Party left us with, are going to receive a Commonwealth seniors health card. The Medicare levy threshold for senior Australians will also be increased right up to the $20,000 level, ensuring that those in their older years who have prepared for their retirement are completely out of the taxation system up to the $20,000 level. Comments from Young Labor saying that it is an old fogies budget undervalue the real effort that this government has made to ensure that a lot of the more vulnerable people in our society—older Australians—are disconnected from the pressure and the pain of having to deal with government with regard to taxation matters and so forth. Medicare is also being further strengthened, with the coalition providing an additional $900 million for Medicare and other health services. We have deliberately targeted areas of need in rural and regional Australia. The 100 rural nursing scholarships are designed to meet a real need in so many parts of Australia for services that many of us in the city take for granted. As well, almost $50 million is being spent on a national diabetes program. We have heard what the health minister has said about the number of people in this chamber—three people in this chamber—who do not realise that they may be diabetes sufferers. That in itself is an example of the unknown pain that may be facing so many Australians. So this program is something that is long overdue and very welcomed by most Australians.Also the early diagnosis of asthma and the development of a care plan for patients who suffer from this disease are very relevant to people in my electorate because Brisbane—a bit like Los Angeles, Athens and other places—as a result of its geography tends to have a lot of asthma related illnesses. The effort of this government to provide additional intervention strategies for GPs in regard to asthma is certainly welcomed by people in my electorate. The increased screening for cervical cancer for high-risk women to help identify problems earlier than has previously been the case is obviously a sensible development.As well, the new $120 million program to provide equality of care given to sufferers of mental illness is a long overdue recognition of a silent and horrible set of diseases that stalk so many in the Australian community. The lack of effort by state governments and federal governments in the past towards mental illness is certainly one thing that has been brought home to me during my time as a member of parliament. That you cannot see the pain that is within someone's brain and their mental capacity and that you cannot see a bruise on their psyche the way you can see one on their physical body means that a lot of people do not treat mental illnesses with the real seriousness that they should be treating them. I am sure all in this place can relate to those who find they have a lack of capacity to cope with stress, depression and other mental illnesses—schizophrenia and so forth. We all know such stories and we all know such people and we have all had associates and friends who have been victims of these illnesses. So the government's $120 million program is certainly welcomed by me and, I am sure, by all members.With regard to the veterans community in my electorate, there are about 21 former Japanese POWs who are going to benefit from that $25,000 payment—not many in the overall scheme of things but each of those people is very important—and another 70 people who are widows of those former POWs who will receive that $25,000 tax-free one-off payment. That is of course also a welcome part of this budget and this appropriation bill. From 1 July, in just a couple of weeks time, the financial institutions duty will be abolished. Twelve million Australians will be saving $1.2 billion a year. Stamp duty on listed shares will be abolished, saving 5.7 million Australians a total of $675 million per year, all part of the process of returning to the people of Australia a sense of trust and doing so through their paying of less tax and therefore giving them more of their own money back. Taxes in the form of bank account debits tax, that dreadful BAD tax that is enforced by the states, and financial institutions duties are things that creep up on us all and that every one of us has to afford. Compare and contrast what this government has done over its time in office with what those opposite did during their time in office and in particular during that watershed election of 1993 when they promised the people of Australia that they would not introduce a goods and services tax and they would not increase taxes. In fact, they were going to decrease taxes, because the tax cuts were l-a-w law, according to then Prime Minister Keating. Of course his Minister for Finance, now the Leader of the Opposition, came into this place in September of 1993 and said that in fact the opposition at the time had not pursued the then government sufficiently well enough to keep them honest on this question of increasing taxes. I and many Australians, certainly most people in my electorate, are very concerned about what those opposite might do if they were to win the election later this year, because the word is getting out there about the Labor Party's capacity to promise one thing before an election and always deliver something else afterwards. We on this side in our conduct have to carry the burden of the standards that others have judged Labor by, because this is a government that, once it has been elected, has always delivered on what it has said it would do prior to an election. In fact, in the case of this budget it is delivering even before the election.I am concerned that the Australian Labor Party have a $3 billion tax increase plan up their sleeve. That is the difference that the forward estimates point to in this budget that we are discussing tonight. The difference between the gross domestic product, our national income, and the level of tax that is currently collected by the federal government in fact declines in the forward estimates to the tune of $3 billion. That is the sort of money that the Australian Labor Party will attempt to try to increase taxes by should they win the election later this year. Why do I know that? Because that is what they did in 1993, and the then finance minister—now the Leader of the Opposition—has said that the number of taxes that were increased following the 1993 election was of course still keeping in contact with the percentage effect of the tax ratio to GDP and they are not looking at the whole figure that was involved in the increase that came following the 1993 election.According to the forward estimates, the tax take will decline by $3 billion over the years ahead. Australians could be paying $3 billion less in tax if this government is returned, as it continues to monitor the decline in the tax take that the Commonwealth takes from Australian workers and investors. The Australian Labor Party will increase taxes by $3 billion. What will they increase? We have not seen anything that rules out any particular increase that has been considered. Will the Medicare levy increase? It has in the past. Will company tax increase, bounce back from 30 cents in the dollar, as it will be on 1 July, to 36 cents in the dollar? That is an obvious point in the sand to start from. Will private income tax increase for private citizens on higher wages? That is something that the Australian Labor Party have done in the past and are more likely to do again. The point is this: those opposite are promising so much in the months leading up to this next election. They are promising essentially to take away anything you do not like, whatever that is, and keep everything you do like, whatever that is, and of course not commit to how they are going to pay it. The fact that they will not commit to how they are going to pay it is a matter of grave concern to people in my electorate who cannot afford to go back to 17 per cent interest rates and $96 billion budget black holes and who cannot afford increases in personal income tax, which is government's way of saying, `We don't trust you to know how to spend your money properly; we'll take more money from you and spend it for you.' People in small business in my electorate are also concerned about the plans that the Australian Labor Party have to wind back, to roll back, the provisions of unfair dismissal legislation in this country, provisions which have never gone far enough and certainly do not satisfy those in small business in my electorate. When small business couple the big tax rises that will come should Labor be elected with a change in the unfair dismissal laws that we have achieved as a government—they have never gone far enough but at least they have been a start—small business in my electorate know that they cannot afford the Australian Labor Party. Small business are not the only people who cannot afford the Australian Labor Party: motorists and residents along Kessels Road know all too well what it was like the last time they had the nexus of a Labor state government and a Labor federal government. That was 10 years ago, in 1991, when the Goss government and the Hawke-Keating government conspired to take Kessels Road out of the state jurisdiction, put it into the federal jurisdiction and make it part of the national road transport corridor. Ever since then, residents in my electorate have been subjected to heavy vehicle traffic, choking on diesel fumes from interstate trucks as they travel through. The budget that we are talking about tonight has had to afford $667,000 to repave a section of Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road, from Gowrie Street to the Gateway Motorway, all because it is a road ill-designed for the purposes that the Labor Party consigned it to 10 years ago.So people in my electorate have a good reason to fear the double whammy of a Labor federal government and a Labor state government. People in my electorate have good reason to fear for their hip pockets. People in my electorate have good reason to be justified in their support for this government's affording of the sensible measures that are outlined in the bill before us tonight. People in my electorate, of course, will be looking closely to find out whether Labor does eventually come clean on where the money is coming from for the many and varied programs, without any details, that they keep offering. (Time expired)21:24:0027310McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—I rise in this appropriations debate to support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Melbourne, the shadow minister for finance. This is a budget that is very disappointing in all its facets. It is disappointing in the economic circumstances it describes for Australia and what it says about our economic prospects. It is disappointing in its lack of a vision for Australia in the 21st century. It is disappointing in the priorities it outlines. In the areas of my particular responsibility as a shadow minister, it is very disappointing regarding indigenous affairs and it has nothing at all to say for the arts. Insofar as it relates to Australia's economic circumstances, this budget shows—as my colleague the shadow Treasurer, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, said—that the GST has mugged the economy. What the statistics show, what the data shows, is that an economy that was growing at 30 June 2000 has, since that time, shown increasing unemployment, falling growth and falling investment. The Treasurer said on 21 September 1999 that the government was introducing a GST to boost growth. That is now a sad epitaph for the economic management of this Treasurer, because since 30 June growth has plummeted. There has been some attempt to create a facade that in some way this is caused by international factors and that we have been caught in some international downturn. From observing the timing and sequence of events, people who actually know the facts have known that that was not true. For many people in the wider community, until today it has been possible for that charade to be sustained, but it has been torn apart today by representatives of the Treasury in evidence given at an estimates committee. Before the estimates committee, a specialist adviser forecasting for the Treasury said that the main effect of slower world growth will become apparent late in the current financial year—that is, the quarter in which we now find ourselves—and, more particularly, in the 2001-02 financial year. As the shadow Treasurer has been saying and as logic makes crystal clear, the consequences of the United States downturn and other consequential international effects are still to be felt. The data which we are seeing at the moment—some more of which we will see tomorrow—concerning growth in this country, data which is underpinning the forecasts in the budget that unemployment will rise above seven per cent this year, is calculated before the impact of the international downturn. I hope the international economy improves and that it can sustain Australian growth at the very modest levels forecast in the budget so that unemployment does not rise any higher. But at least once and for all we can dispel the myth that the slowdown in the Australian economy since June 2000 has been in some way caused by international factors—that impact is still to come. The slowdown has been caused by the GST and, in particular, by the GST's impact on housing, and that is what the Treasury said today. They are correct. Also disappointing is what this budget says about this government's attitude to our economic prospects. In making that point, let me quote a very sage old economic commentator, but a very conservative one—one who has not been renowned for his support of the Labor Party over the years. I refer to Max Walsh—not one of the more left-wing economic commentators in our country, I would have thought. His analysis of the budget in the Bulletin of 5 June is devastating. I will not have time to read it all, but I would recommend it to any listeners and readers. Let me read some parts of it:This was an election budget. But significantly it broke new ground in its strategic focus on political gamesmanship. It was framed not only to undermine Labor's election chances but to seriously diminish the ability of an incoming Labor government to pursue its policy agenda. It has deliberately appropriated future revenue collections on an unprecedented scale.That such scorched-earth tactics will have considerable collateral damage on the general electorate seems to be of no concern. This strategy was implemented without any reference to maximising national economic outcomes but with an over-riding priority of mollifying wavering government supporters.He goes on:There is not even an attempt to dress up the budget as anything more than a balancing of claims of competing interest groups with a view to maximising government returns at the ballot box. And it is not as though the government has a philosophical view of where it wants to take Australia. On the evidence of the budget, it is driven solely by personal ambition, the lust for power and the comforts and prestige of office.Subsequently, after destroying the argument that the previous member tried to make about this government not being a high taxing government—and he does that very eloquently—he then goes on to say:But the future accumulation of surpluses, which were still there in the official figures at the end of last year, also presented the government with the opportunity to actually improve Australia's international comparative advantage.It can be done by improving the educational capacity of the economy and by creating a more attractive tax regime. Labor is advocating the former—which is true—while the government has theoretically favoured the latter. The accumulating surplus was there for either strategy.As John Edwards, chief economist at HSBC, points out, the surplus could have delivered a doubling of Commonwealth expenditure on universities and schools. Alternatively, it could have financed the reduction of the 42% and 47% top marginal tax rates to 30%. Instead it evaporated, redistributed away in the hope of buying enough votes to win the next election.It is a devastating analysis. There is more of the same, and I would recommend it to anyone interested.The disappointment with regard to the lack of 21st century vision is that the strategy of this budget merely involves a series of panic measures to cope with the consequences of the GST. It says nothing about where Australia will be at the end of this decade—let alone in 2050, as we look forward. It has nothing to say about how Australia will become a knowledge nation. It merely attempts to make it harder for an incoming Labor government, should we win the election, to implement that program, as in the ways outlined by Max Walsh. But the government have trapped themselves far more, because all the money that is available to them for programs is available to us, including any windfall, in that we have the capacity to reorder the priorities with which they are stuck. So electorally it has not trapped us as seriously as it has trapped the government themselves. The serious point that has been made by Max Walsh, which is important to us all, is that it has trapped the Australian people and limited their prospects for the future. It is a budget that shows very disappointing priorities. It supports advertising and consultancies instead of health expenditure. It supports more funding to wealthy category 1 schools instead of to teachers and poorer schools. It supports tax deductions for political donations instead of funding a GST roll-back for charities. So it is about disappointment in terms of vision, economic prospect and circumstances, and priorities. And it is a complete failure in articulating alternative policies to take us forward.In the remainder of my time I want to turn my attention to the disappointment in the areas of my particular responsibility—indigenous affairs and the arts. The Chairman of ATSIC described this budget, as it relates to indigenous affairs—about which it talks a lot—as `modest in the short term and disappointing for the long term'. In my view that is probably generous but certainly not harsh as a criticism. After six years of savage funding cuts, this budget asks indigenous Australians to trust that this government will deliver on their funding promises when they have never done so in the past.In the 1996 budget the Howard government cut almost $500 million over four years from the programs available to be delivered on behalf of indigenous people. They forced ATSIC, through those cuts, to make massive cuts to community training—important training programs were cut. The government now expect people to applaud because they have announced the injection of $31 million over four years to initiatives in indigenous training and employment, after they cut out $67.5 million in their 1996 cuts. They have cut twice as much as they have returned. They have made a series of funding promises in this budget, but they have merely assumed a series of promises on the never-never—that is, if this government are re-elected, they ask indigenous people to trust that they will actually commit this money in future years. They did announce $31 million over four years for better support to get a job and, ironically, to assist CDEP organisations in areas with a viable labour market—that is, the assistance is going where employment is good, not where employment is bad.But the point I want to make now is that, for all of those big words, in this budget— which is actually the money that is being appropriated by this bill—there is only $2.6 million. There is $15.6 million for community participation agreements and capacity building, which has inherently within it quite a good idea. I am not quite sure whether it is properly implemented but—let us not be churlish—it has within it not a bad idea. However, you have to have a lot of faith that it is going to be done in the future, because there is only $1 million available and appropriated this year. There is a lot of talk for the future but not much action this year. Similarly, there is $10 million over four years for increased education and training assistance but—wait for it—$200,000 this year. I am sure those indigenous families who are hoping their children can extend their term at school are all waiting breathlessly for the $200,000 to be spread amongst them and bring great relief.There is a crisis in indigenous housing, related to the comments made by the member for Grayndler in his speech about the problems in housing. The government has offered $75 million over four years, but it has only appropriated $3 million. There are two points to make about that. One is again that the government has not reinstated funds to the extent of its previous cuts, where it cut $80 million over four years and five years later has come back and put in $75 million. Without even taking account of the impact of inflation, that is a cut. But the real point is that in those four great initiatives—all so proudly proclaimed by the government—all it has appropriated is $6.8 million over the four years, not enough to start to address any of the problems. If a re-elected Howard government were to return, it asks the indigenous people to take it on trust that the promises in the out years might be forthcoming. We know from the leaked cabinet document released and spoken to on television by the member for Jagajaga that not only ATSIC but the Department of Finance and Administration and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet supported a $300 per participant increase for training and work initiatives within the CDEP but that the cabinet rejected the proposal and adopted a proposal to provide all of the extra employment assistance in the areas where labour markets are strong and none in the areas where labour markets are weak. It has not yet defined what a viable labour market is, but we know that the communities in crisis for employment will not be included.This budget promises money in the future while taking away from existing programs. One of the benchmarks of practical reconciliation is supposed to be education and training, yet the minister is promising to deliver something that his mates in cabinet are taking away through their programs. The government last Monday night lauded the achievements of indigenous organisations such as the Murdi Paaki Regional Council of ATSIC, which is a very fine organisation, and pinpointed them as ideal recipients of new government funding while simultaneously cutting existing funding for a regional training program through the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. In the words of the CEO of ATSIC:... certainly the regional trading strategy—which is what they have now cut—was regarded as a success.... ... ...They—that is, Murdi Paaki—have succeeded and continue to succeed in that partnership in a way that you would not find many other examples in this country.Yet the Murdi Paaki Regional Council has just lost funding from that department for its ongoing regional training strategy, which initiates, facilitates and coordinates the delivery of culturally appropriate and comprehensive training programs. Worse still, Murdi Paaki will not be able to benefit in three years time when funds become available for many of the new government programs, as it is not located in a viable labour market. I am concerned that the government is giving with one hand and taking with the other.The last thing I want to comment on is an alarming situation with regard to life expectancy for indigenous Australians. I read recently a very fine book by Amartya Sen, the Nobel prize winning economist, called Development as Freedom. In it he had some very alarming figures about how black Americans' life expectancy was less than that in many Third World countries. I was shocked to see this, so I asked the library to prepare for me, in cooperation with one of my staff, some figures about the relevant Australian comparisons. They shocked me. For indigenous Australian males, life expectancy is 55.6 years, which is way below the life expectancy for males in India, Brazil, Indonesia, Egypt, Vietnam, China, Albania, Mexico and Iran—all of those being between 10 and 25 per cent higher in life expectancy than indigenous Australian males.The relative situation is the same for women, although the actual life expectancy figures in all of those countries are better for women. Relatively, Australian indigenous women are still lower than all of those countries. When we look at it more broadly in a region, I suppose you could say it is better news: the life expectancy for indigenous Australians is better than for people living in sub-Saharan Africa—but not much. But it is less than the average life expectancy for people in the world's low income regions in South Asia, in East Asia or in the Pacific. It is virtually the same figure for women. This is a damning indictment of us all, and there is nothing in this budget to respond to that damning indictment—no sense of urgency at all.My concluding remarks in the last two or three minutes are going to be about this budget and the arts. It will not take more than two or three minutes, because there is nothing at all in this budget for the arts. I do not know what the two ministers do, but they have provided nothing—nothing for film, television and local production, nothing for contemporary music, no vision, no inspiration, no passion, no creativity, no understanding of the importance of the arts to Australia and the knowledge economy that we should be striving to achieve in the 21st century, nothing to counteract the effects of the attacks that the government is making through parallel importation proposals for books and computer software, nothing to compensate for the Minister for Trade putting local film and television content regulation on the bargaining table with the United States and nothing to compensate for the continuing attacks on the ABC. There is no initiative reflected in this budget to enhance the funding of the Australia Council—its core funding or any special projects. But the biggest issue—let me just press on in the time—facing the arts is the attack on the ABC. There is no mention in this budget of restoring the cuts to radio and television drama production that are having such a desperate effect on the lives of writers, actors, producers and artists in Australia.This is a very disappointing budget. It does not have any view about where Australia might go. It is a budget of a tired government, a budget of a government that only ever had one idea: the GST. The government is now spending its declining years seeking to compensate Australians to cope with the consequences of its one great idea, the GST—to cope with its economic consequences, to cope with its social consequences and to cope with the way in which the expenditure to compensate for it has taken away the capacity to fund the great programs that Australia's future needs. (Time expired)21:45:0027314Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—It is interesting to rise in this chamber after the member for Fraser made his comments in this parliament, crying about the fact that there are no great surpluses that the Labor Party can squander in the future. No doubt that is a bit of a disappointment because, if for some unforeseen reason the electorate were to trust the Labor Party again, there is no doubt that that is exactly what would happen. There is no use in the Labor Party talking about surplus budgets. This is the coalition government's sixth budget surplus, but of course they have no claim to fame in that particular area. If you were to listen to the Labor opposition, they would have you believe that the leopard has changed its spots; all of a sudden, they believe in bigger surpluses and less tax. But, if we go back through the history of these things, we see that that is hardly credible. When I first started in the New South Wales parliament, the Premier was Neville Wran, whom the Labor Party likes to hold up as one of their shining lights in the political arena. When that government was defeated, we found that there were some $26 billion worth of debts. All of the government departments that had surpluses had been raided. All the money in hollow logs that the government could find had been spent. And there was an unfunded superannuation scheme of $20 billion without a cent in it. I noticed today on the wire service that the Labor opposition in South Australia is now saying that they believe in budget surpluses. It is not very long ago that we had the debacle in South Australia of the State Bank collapse and the horrendous position that that state was placed in. When Jeff Kennett took over in Victoria there was a $40 billion state deficit. The Labor Party in opposition cried about the fact that Kennett was selling off assets to pay off debt. Anyone who understands the situation knows that, if you are going to pay off debt, the money has to come from somewhere. You have to either raise it from taxes or sell off assets. When the Labor Party won power again in Victoria, it did not take long for us to see their true colours. In their second budget, they have gone into deficit. After all the hard work that Jeff Kennett did to drag Victoria out of bankruptcy, the Labor Party is already heading back into deficit. The Labor Party standing up and talking about bigger surpluses and lower taxes is plainly not credible. I will not even talk about Western Australia, which I suppose is the piece de resistance, with prominent Labor Party figures in that state ending up in jail. If you look at this budget, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will find that it has clearly given back to the people some of the benefits that they should get from the hard work that was done to reduce the debt that we have in this country. No-one seems to want to give credit to the Treasurer for the fact that $60 billion worth of Labor debt has been paid off. The benefit of that is that $4 billion worth of interest does not have to be paid each and every year. That is $4 billion which can be given back in benefits to the people. I am pleased to say that a lot of that is getting back to regional and rural Australia, represented by the National Party, of which I am a member. We are extremely proud of the fact that last year we were able to get the government to agree to a scheme of $1.6 billion going back to the states for rural and regional roads. Not since the Keating government cut off the CAR program, which was originated many years ago by a coalition government, have any substantial funds been put into local rural roads. Many of those roads were constructed during the fifties and sixties, and certainly not for the types of transport that we have today. Those roads were going back to being gravel and dirt roads because the bitumen on them was failing. No-one is pretending that $1.6 billion is going to solve this problem, but it is certainly a step in the right direction towards trying to get our rural and regional roads back into some order. The National Party was very pleased that we were able to get some money for these roads. On the North Coast of New South Wales, people remember very clearly the hard days of the Hawke and Keating governments. They remember—farmers particularly— paying interest rates of up to 22 and 23 per cent. They remember very clearly the 17 per cent unemployment rate in those areas. We have managed to turn that around. Thankfully, we have been able to help some of the local industries up there that are producing employment opportunities. Permo-Drive Technologies has an extremely good invention that has come out of the Lismore area, which saves 15 per cent on fuel on highways and probably up to 30 per cent in fuel around the city. That invention is starting to take root. The government has been able to help that company get its operations up and running. We hope that it will have export potential. This is a world-first invention and it has great opportunities. I would like to congratulate the people in that company who had the tenacity to see this process through. It is very difficult to get anything new like this up and running, and those people managed to do that. Aspect North, another group in Lismore which is working very well, managed to get a defence department contract into mapping Australia. A lot of our modern defence systems, particularly the cruise missiles that are used these days, require accurate mapping. Some of the jobs that have been created in that area are very high-income jobs, which is very beneficial to the Lismore district. Five years ago, this coalition government committed funds to the Summerland Way. The Summerland Way starts at Grafton and branches off through Casino and Kyogle, up over the range into Rathdowney and into Brisbane. A lot of heavy transport takes that route, away from coastal areas and the very congested coastal highway. We have been frustrated completely by the New South Wales government and the Hon. Carl Scully.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—A great minister.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—Undoubtedly he learnt his trade in the New South Wales Right. Some $8 million has been spent over five years because the RTA in New South Wales refused to do the plans and refused to let the projects be completed on this road. They just do not want to see that a coalition can upgrade these roads. I have said to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services that we should wipe the RTA in New South Wales as far as being the construction authority is concerned. There is nothing to stop the Commonwealth from offering to build these roads up to an RTA standard—they do have a standard for roads. We can call for tenders and we can get Aspect North, who are expert engineers, to oversee the construction of this work. It is about time we cut the politics out and got on, getting some money on the road, bypassing Carl Scully who just wants to frustrate this particular project. There is no doubt that the people of the north want that to happen. I have recommended to the minister that we should pursue that method. Undoubtedly, the people of the North Coast of New South Wales, which is a very high retirement area, were very thankful for the benefits in this budget for pensioners and superannuants. Superannuants in particular have long been the forgotten of our elderly, particularly under the previous government. As far as the taxation thresholds were concerned, they had to pay tax after $5,400 of income, whereas pensioners were allowed up to $11,000 of tax-free income. In previous budgets, this government raised the tax-free threshold for superannuants to $11,000. It is very pleasing to see that, because of wise management by this government, we have been able now to lift their threshold to $20,000. I am sure that members opposite will not criticise that particular section of the budget.Even though unemployment has been reduced on the North Coast from 17 per cent back to about 10 per cent, which is a very big result, there is no doubt that it still poses a particular problem because it is always consistently above the national average in this area. The budget again shows some flexibility. Quite often there is a problem when people are on benefits and they can get some casual employment. Obviously, if they are taken off those benefits, there is a withholding period before they can come back on to benefits. The budget has taken this into consideration in allowing them to earn small amounts of money without going off their benefits. Many people who are honestly and earnestly trying to find employment on the North Coast will see that as a great advantage.I am also pleased to see in the budget that we have managed to find extra money for quarantine. There is no doubt in my mind that rural electorates are always very concerned about the exotic diseases that can absolutely decimate some of our rural industries. We have heard debates in this chamber about fire blight in apples. Undoubtedly in recent times we have seen all too starkly on the television the problems in England with foot-and-mouth disease. I feel for some of those producers in England and the fact that they are losing whole herds to this terrible disease. The other thing, too, which we should understand is that in some of those areas of northern England there were some flocks of very rare breeds of sheep, probably very limited in number. In some instances, those breeds have been lost because of this disease. So we do not want it in this country. Because people can move so quickly around the world at the present time, it is a great challenge to countries like Australia which are free from these terrible exotic diseases to keep our country clean. I was very pleased today that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in answering a question, indicated that surveillance in Australia has been increased dramatically. One only has to look to North Queensland where we have had an outbreak of black sigatoka in bananas. We tried valiantly to keep that disease out of this country. It would seem at this stage that we have a problem with that disease in bananas and it is going to cost us dearly. It is a fair warning that we have to be ever vigilant in these areas.On a few occasions in the parliament, we have heard the government's commitment on defence. The Minister for Defence has shown a very strong commitment in that area and the budget clearly shows, if we look through the figures, the tremendous increase that has been put towards the defence of this country. I know that people in my electorate are very concerned about surveillance. The AWACs that have been clearly indicated in the white paper will be of great help in surveillance. We probably need to look closely at whether we need more patrol boats— something, I dare say, that the minister is watching closely. We only have to look at the entry of illegal immigrants to see that there is a need in Australia to have very strong surveillance along our huge coastline. There has been great debate about the immigrants who are illegally attempting to come into this country. People in my electorate in particular have grave concerns about that. They see these people as acting illegally in trying to enter the country. They see that they are trying to queue jump. We have an immigration program whereby people who genuinely want to come to this country can apply through the processes and the rules that we have. People in my electorate are very concerned about the fact that there appear to be groups of people who are paying to try to bypass the system to come to this country. It causes no end of trouble, as we have seen in many instances across the country. The fact is that, if people disappear into the community, they are very hard to find again. I dare say the community does not realise that we probably have more illegal immigrants attempting to come in through our airports than we have coming in on boats. It is a real issue in Australia. We also have tens of thousands of people who are in this country illegally—they have come in and they have overstayed their visas. It proves the point that it is very difficult to control this particular area once people are out in the community. We have people who are prepared to protect them so that they are not caught by the immigration authorities. That makes it more difficult for the minister in trying to police this area.I would also like to speak about the commitment to the Natural Heritage Trust. This was an initiative by this coalition government and it is going to be continued. There has been some tremendous work done in this particular area. Let me take you to an issue that is of concern to many people, fishermen and environmentalists but also farmers, on the North Coast—it is an issue for many countries around the world, not just for Australia—and that is acid sulphate soils. Acid sulphate soils occur where the land has been inundated by salt over a long period of time. With oxidisation and heavy rainfall we get sulphuric acid being poured into the rivers and streams. This can cause enormous problems for aquatic life and really does need to be controlled. I dare say I can claim some credit for addressing this problem, because it presented itself when I was Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in New South Wales. I set up a committee made up of amateur fishermen, professional fishermen, land-holders and environmentalists along with Professor White from Sydney University to address this particular problem.Through the Natural Heritage Trust we have been able to inject a considerable amount of funds into this project. I note, by the way, that every time the funds are allocated the New South Wales government comes out and announces them. Of course, that is our system of government under the federal system, and we will not worry too much about that. The funds are going to very good areas. As a result of the cooperation—and it has been very good cooperation—between the amateur fishermen, the professional fishermen and the farmers they have been able to alleviate this problem of acid sulphate soils. As a result of the research that has been done by Sydney University, some land management practices have been put in place, the run-off from these areas has been very much reduced and the problems are being alleviated.In my final minute or so I would like to talk about telecommunications. To plagiarise a phrase from Martin Luther King, `I have a dream' that we can take telecommunications across Australia—a local call at the same speed at the same cost right across Australia. I do not think it is an impossible dream. If ever in my lifetime I have seen an opportunity for decentralisation, this is the opportunity. Decentralisation is probably one of the most hackneyed terms in Australian politics. It has been talked about, but unless you have a market and a raw material you cannot achieve decentralisation. In this instance, we have the technology available that puts rural and regional Australia on the same footing as Pitt Street, Sydney, because the regions can have the same access to the same technology. Businesses can be run probably cheaper in rural and regional Australia because there are not the overheads that we have in the CBDs of our capital cities. If we can achieve one thing, that would be something that is worth achieving. (Time expired)22:05:0027318McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—It is always interesting to listen to the National Party members when they come into the House and make speeches about things, because what they say is always wrapped up in waffle and things like `I had a dream' and I had this and I had that. It was amazing to hear the previous speaker, the member for Page, who represents the North Coast of New South Wales like you do, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, talk about how he wanted to see a sort of single call zone all across Australia. There is only one problem with that: you are the lot who want to sell the telephone company. If you are ever going to have a chance to have a world-class telephone system here in Australia, you do not do it by selling the telephone company. All this week the Prime Minister has been slashing his wrists and gnashing his teeth about how terrible it is when telephone companies go bust. We saw a telephone company go bust this week. They were only a reseller, but they called themselves a telephone company. They had a spectrum licence and they were trying to pretend that they were a baby Bell. This government wants to sell Telstra and what the people in the country have to understand is that all this tripe that the government are going on about—about how they will not sell Telstra until the standards are met—is not the truth. When the government sells Telstra, the standards will fall. Someone would have told you six months ago that any business that the Packers and the Murdochs invested in was a licence to print money. But the Packers and the Murdochs have lost nearly $1 billion in the collapse of One.Tel. These private telephone companies are not real smart. The National Party members who try to convince people in the bush that a privatised Telstra would help them have a better opportunity are not telling the truth. Someone standing up here in the parliament and trying to suggest that a private telephone company will turn Australia into a single call zone might be right, but it will cost you $2 a call. That is the sort of stupid pie-in-the-sky stuff that the National Party will try to sell you. But that stupid pie-in-the-sky stuff is pretty typical of this budget.In fact, at about this time last year I remember getting to my feet to talk about the last budget. I recall that I said then that that budget was unexciting and that even the word `banal' was flattering when used to describe it, but what I particularly remember saying was that there was little or no vision in the so-called priorities of the budget—in effect, that the last budget was a dog. If the last budget was a dog, this budget is `best in show'. What do we have this year? Not surprisingly from this government, we have another budget with little or no vision. I suppose some people may have expected a glimmer of vision in an election year. But not even in an election year do we get any vision from this Prime Minister and Treasurer. We have a consistently limited vision government which trots out a few short-term measures, dares to call it a budget and hopes that it will get it over the line during the election campaign. Even the short-term measures are not quite as good as they appeared to be when they were announced on budget night.As always with this oh-so-clever government, you have to read the fine print because the devil is certainly in the detail—that is, if it has been written of course, because often the bureaucracy does not have the chance to work out the way through all the fine nuances that its tricky political masters have in mind. The paperwork—the forms that have to be filled in and the criteria that have to be met in order to qualify for assistance—has often not been devised by the time the announcements are made. All the small business people who are still struggling under the business activity statement understand the truth of that remark.`Trick' is the other word that comes to mind when you consider the budget measures. It is certainly the word that comes to mind when you look at the smug faces on members opposite. They think that they can buy approval by giving a few goodies to some sectors of the community that they have done over in the past. It is like, `We'll take $10 off you and we'll give you $5 back, and you should be happy that we've only robbed you of half as much.' But even those few goodies have conditions attached to them that only a limited number of the apparent chosen will be able to meet. So even in its seeming generosity to the selected target groups the government cannot resist the temptation to be tricky. Today in question time my colleague from South Australia revealed the disgraceful trickery in the government's dealing with the ex-prisoners of war bonus—the $25,000 that they gave to ex-prisoners of war of the Japanese. There was even a string attached to that. If they put it in the bank they would get caught up in the deeming rules. Even with people who were prisoners of war, the government could not give a no strings attached benefit—there had to be a clawback. The government still have not learnt from previous experience, such as the disappointment of older Australians who thought that they were going to get the savings bonus after last year's budget and then discovered that that was not necessarily so. In fact, just last week a constituent of mine contacted my office about the savings bonus. This fellow had received the handsome amount of $39.60. He heard on budget night that he was going to get $1,000, but he only got $39.60. He thought, `Well, that's a bit of a burnt stick in the eye but at least it's something.' That was until recently. He has been asked to repay the amount. He apparently should have received nothing. So what they give with one hand they take away with the other. Goodness knows how much time and effort were expended by Centrelink, or whoever it was, to recover the $39.60 from the fellow. It probably cost them more to get the money back.We all know that his case is not unique. Lots of people have been, to put it bluntly, stuffed up regarding eligibility for this bonus. Who can forget seeing on television the man who bailed up the Prime Minister recently on the Central Coast. It reminded me of the sort of push and shove that we had in the schoolyard when we were kids, with the Prime Minister saying, `I didn't!' and the man saying, `You did!' It is not very edifying to see the Prime Minister arguing the point with a very obviously disaffected older person. The Prime Minister, at times described as a great debater by some, was like a small child arguing the point and being determined to try and have the last word. The trouble was that the fellow on the Central Coast was right. The government had everybody believe on budget night 12 months ago that people were going to get the savings bonus. Like my constituent, some of them did not get the $1,000, and whatever they got they were asked to hand back.Those in the government do not seem to remember the debacles of the last budget. They must be slow learners. I stress that I am talking about the government here. The older Australians are not slow learners—they are all too well aware of what they are really getting from this government: nothing or nothing much at the very best. But the government obviously still thinks it can get away with trickery; otherwise it would not be persisting with measures that appear at first glance to be straightforward and unconditional but which turn out to have strings attached.Let me go into a bit more detail about the measures for older Australians that are supposed to be in the budget. There is $300 to be paid as a lump sum—a non-taxable amount—to each person who receives a pension or a part pension. This is what the Treasurer said in his budget speech but he did add, quietly, that this covers qualifying people with incomes up to $29,263 for a single person and $48,880 for a couple. It seems straightforward, doesn't it? But what we were then told subsequent to the budget speech was that men have to be over 65 to qualify and women have to be over 61½. The government even had the cheek to include in the budget speech the comment that any delay by the opposition would mean that the payment could not be made this month. The opposition were not going to oppose it. We are not opposed to pensioners getting $300—we hoped that they would all get the $300—but we know, because of the performance of this government, that they will not all get the $300. Obviously the government and the Treasurer thought that we were going to say no to that. That is a nonsense. While I may think that $300 is too little too late and restricted to too few, I would not try to stop it. It is better than nothing, but not enough people got it. The implied threat in the Treasurer's words that the opposition might knock the amount back was just bullying at its worst. The opposition is not mean spirited like the government is and we are not tricky like the government is. Another measure supposed to assist older Australians comes in the guise of a tax cut for qualifying single self-funded retirees and age pensioners. Those who listened to the Treasurer on budget night could be excused for thinking that they had a tax-free threshold of $20,000 in the current financial year. The previous speaker said that he thought that was terrific and that the opposition would not oppose it, we would not knock it. Of course, we would not knock that, and we wish it was true. But it is another one of the trickeries. What they have picked up again is something like the $300 gift. The word `qualifying' was used, and therein lies the let-out for the government. The effective tax-free threshold is actually achieved by including in the calculations increases to the maximum low income age pension rebate for self-funded retirees and pensioner rebate for age pensioners. The rebates offset the tax liability applicable to private income—up to $20,000 for a single person and $32,612 for couples. So, you see, the government has done it again. It has made the grand announcement, but when you carefully check all the words you find that the grand announcement is not quite what it seemed at first glance, and in many instances is not what it was said to be. Another condition which came to light soon after the budget was announced is the age barrier. To be considered an older Australian for this particular measure you have to be of age pension age. So self-funded retirees who thought they were going to get this benefit and who are below the age pension age—and I can assure you that there are a lot of them—are not covered by the measure. By the time all the conditions are met, there are very few older Australians who will receive the $300—I would suspect not as many as received even part of the savings bonus that the government announced last year.Even the government members understand what this trickery is all about. Indeed, the member for Riverina, in her contribution— and she is a government member, not one of us—has publicly commented on the reaction of older retirees to the unfairness of the way this group of people has been treated—ignored would probably be the best word to describe it. She actually said that she felt sorry for the 55 to 65 year age group who did not benefit from the `lift' in the tax-free threshold to $20,000 for self-funded retirees. What a pity that she was not able to have some influence on her colleagues in government. But it is refreshing to note that at least the voice of dissidence is allowed in the government and that at least others recognise what the opposition recognised, which is that the government is just being far too tricky. The member for Riverina should get real. She should be trying to get out there and get something done rather than just saying how sorry she is that this happened. Obviously some messages do not get put across too well in the party room. The coalition party room might be the only place in Australia where people have not yet woken up to the fact that this is a `smoke and mirrors' budget, a product of a very, very mean government.Another issue in the budget that is creating havoc is the changes in the availability of cholesterol lowering drugs. Budget Paper No. 1 says that the government will clarify Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme instructions issued to prescribers for the use of cholesterol lowering medicines to ensure that these medicines are used by people most likely to benefit from them. These changes are estimated to save $103.9 million over four years by reducing the so-called unnecessary use of the medicines. What is obvious here is that there is going to be a reduction in the prescription of these drugs so that some of those who have been taking the drug will no longer be prescribed it or will be prescribed a lesser amount. Whichever way it is managed, the proposed measure is causing a great deal of consternation to those Australians who have been prescribed the drug in the past. The Prime Minister has not helped anyone on this. His patronising and insulting performance at question time two days after the budget speech just showed what the government thinks of people who are sick in this country. In fact, his performance angered many who have high cholesterol levels despite having healthy diets and taking exercise. His reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition revealed his ignorance about cholesterol and an incredible lack of sympathy for those unfortunate enough, for whatever reason, to have high levels requiring medication. The Prime Minister managed to insult the medical profession by implying that it inappropriately prescribed these drugs and to show remarkable insensitivity to those who have heart disease. As we discovered during Senate estimates committee hearings, a recent study has shown that some patients have been stopping their treatment early and that there has therefore been a misunderstanding of the place or the use of cholesterol lowering agents in the overall management of high cholesterol. This may be so, but to announce this measure without reassuring people who genuinely need these drugs that they will still be available to them, and to imply that those who have been taking these drugs do not necessarily need them, was disgraceful and alarmist on the part of the government. The government has estimated that it will save a lot of money through this measure. It will be interesting to see just how much it does save. I imagine that the medical profession is not very impressed by this measure insofar as it reflects on them. And their patients are certainly looking with some trepidation at what the doctors will be able to do for them. The government is implying that doctors have been overprescribing these drugs and not adequately explaining the general management of cholesterol levels to their patients. I wonder how the government would react if the medical profession started telling it how it could do its job and thereby make some savings! We have seen the health minister running his campaign against the AMA, of which he is a member, in the last few weeks. He was very keen to try to save government money by making sure that we do not provide drugs to sick people, but he is willing to put at risk hundreds of thousands of dollars of the Commonwealth's money in a defamation matter that he is running with the president of the AMA just because he is too mean and tricky to say he is sorry for insulting her. This budget has selected a few areas to give some increased funding to, but it has ignored many other areas. There is nothing in the budget for young Australians, particularly those who are unemployed or struggling to make the transition from school to work or study and independent living. The government continues to demonstrate its short-sightedness when it comes to young people in the community. The young are our future; they need to be nurtured and encouraged. They need and look for leadership from the government, and this government seems incapable of offering any inspired leadership to our young people. There is nothing in this budget to assist the young unemployed, to give them any encouragement or hope that they can obtain employment.There is nothing in this budget for young families, nothing to help with child care, little to assist with the care of the aged and those with disabilities. Taking aged care as an example, while funds are being made available for standards monitoring and complaint resolution, we are not seeing anything to fix the cause of the problem; we are not seeing any more beds. The government is looking at the symptoms but not addressing the actual problem of the growing shortage of aged care services or the pressure on funding and quality of care. We have seen today in this House the disgraceful behaviour of that Millie Phillips woman and the Yagoona Nursing Home. This is a person who is running a concentration camp for old people, but she contributes $14,000 to the Liberal Party and nothing seems to happen. A fellow who was a prisoner of war, who was in the Sandakan campaign, is left to rot in this nursing home by these deplorable people who run it. And the minister stands up in the House and says, `I've got no control over this.' This is a government that could not care less about old people and certainly could not care less about old people in nursing homes. There is nothing in the budget to help them. There is nothing in the budget to help those people who want to work in the community. When you see the sorts of things that have been revealed in this House in the last few days about nursing homes, the government should hang its head in shame. There is not much in the budget for things that might raise our aspirations, like the arts, despite the government's announcement that it would continue with some programs. There is nothing for indigenous affairs. There are promises of some increased funding down the track, but how can anyone believe this government's promises? I seem to remember the Prime Minister making a promise about the GST. Promises from this government are promises that will never be kept. It will certainly not keep them merely because it has given its word to the people of Australia.One matter that did rear its head in the budget is the sale of Telstra. As I said earlier, the budget papers refer to the deferral of the further sale of the Commonwealth's shareholding in Telstra to 2003-04, straight after the next election campaign. So much for the government's undertaking to do something about standards. It does not care what happens to standards in the bush. It is going to sell Telstra, and the standards in the bush will go down. One.Tel has shown that private telephone companies seem to go belly up. We have seen Optus sold to Singapore, and now the government will sell Telstra to whomsoever wants to buy it. People in the bush should not be conned by this lot. (Time expired)22:25:0027322Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10— There are not many in the parliament tonight, but perhaps there are a number of people listening to this broadcast right across Australia. I address my comments to those people who are listening tonight. I say to them: whatever your political affiliations might be, whether you have been rusted on or you are a swinging voter, step outside that for a moment and think about the clear choice that you will have at the time of the next federal election. Think about the choice that will come down to this: do you want John Howard to be Prime Minister once again, or do you want Kim Beazley to be Prime Minister? Just think about that. Do you want to have the best Prime Minister since Robert Menzies or do you want to have the worst Prime Minister since Arthur Calwell?Step outside even that kind of rhetoric and think about what the opposition are promising. They are promising roll-back of the GST, they are promising increases in spending in health and education, and they are promising a bigger surplus. Think about that, all those listeners out there. How would you do that in your own home budget? How would you cut your income, increase your spending and have more money in your bank account at the end of the day? How could you do that? The answer is you cannot—you absolutely cannot. But that is what you are being offered by Kim Beazley in response to the government's budget this year. The code is, of course: where are the taxes going to go up? What programs are going to be cut?Many of you will have seen the Sunday program, where Kim Beazley was asked by Laurie Oakes, `Mr Beazley, which taxes are you going to increase? Are you going to increase that? Are you going to increase something else?' Kim Beazley's response was that it was undignified to ask him that. How could that be? How could a Leader of the Opposition who aspires to be Prime Minister of this country say, in front of the country, `I'm not going to answer that question'? Those people who are listening out there tonight, think about that. You think about why the Labor Party hides behind a comment that it is undignified to answer the question.You have also got to think about this. As the economy grows—and it has been growing at record levels under this government— the forward estimates in the budget show that tax collection is going to fall. By the end of the fourth year it will have fallen by about $3 billion. Now think about this. The Leader of the Opposition has said that there are going to be no increases in taxes. But what he is actually saying is that there is going to be no increase in tax as a percentage of GDP. Those in this House will understand that. And what does that mean? It means that the shortfall of $3 billion which will occur is going to have to be picked up by an actual increase in taxation. And where is it going to come from? It is going to come from higher income earners and increases in company tax. Small business people out there who are listening tonight ought to understand that Kim Beazley's rhetoric is code for: we are going to do you in the eye in relation to tax. There is no doubt about that because you cannot roll back the GST, you cannot increase the spending of a government and at the same time have a bigger surplus without increasing taxation. Those who are listening tonight should certainly understand that and contemplate that. Whatever your political allegiances are, you should be mindful of that come the time of the next election, whenever that might be. Debate interrupted. Adjournment2732310000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.2732322:30:0027323Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—I want to remark on two issues tonight. The first is the great concern being expressed by a number of my constituents in northern Wollongong as a result of the changes being imposed by the government with the switch of the ABC to a new UHF channel 30. There are enormous difficulties being brought to bear on many of my constituents from Thirroul northwards. Quite a number of them have contacted my office and I have written to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Richard Alston, asking him to look at this particular matter.One of the things that was brought to my attention recently was that my constituents could not get through to the help line that had been put in place. Finally, when they did, they were told to contact a local technician to retune their television sets and also their video receivers. Of course, many of these people are pensioners. One of the gentlemen that contacted my office said, `A deal has been struck: he said he would come and do it for me for 20 bucks, but I just haven't got that $20 to be able to spend on something like this.' I appeal to the government to look at this issue. A number of my constituents have also said that, regrettably, they did not get the advice that the change was going to take place. It is a major issue and I bring it to the attention of the House and to the minister tonight.The second matter I want to comment on, as this is the first opportunity that I have had, is to reinforce in this place—and these are not my words but the words of many other people—that Wollongong is now the sporting capital of Australia. I would like to lend my support and my congratulations to the Wollongong Wolves for their back-to-back victory on Sunday in defeating South Melbourne 2-1. I had the great pleasure of being at Parramatta Stadium to witness that, and it was a tremendous game of soccer and an ornament to the game. This comes hard on the heels—and I am delighted to see the member for Herbert in the chamber tonight—of the Wollongong Hawks victory in the National Basketball League title by defeating the Townsville Crocodiles.I would like to congratulate John Carson, the owner of the Hawks, and Brendan Joyce, the coach, and all the players who have done a tremendous job in taking a team that was described as a group of battlers and turning them into a championship team. It is magnificent for the national competition that in fact two regional teams were in the grand final. Wasn't it brilliant that it was not teams coming from capital cities? I do congratulate the Hawks for a magnificent season. I also congratulate Ron Correy, the coach of the Wollongong Wolves, all of the players and Joe Cachia and the board of directors of the Wolves for putting together a team that was able to come up with this back-to-back victory. Who could forget last year's nail-biter, where they beat Perth Glory in a penalty shoot-out? The game on Sunday was a tremendous game of football. Inspirational, as always, was Matt Horsley, the captain of the team, who won Best on Ground for the day. Matt has been playing with a deal of personal difficulty in his own life, with illness to his daughter, and we wish the family all the very best for the future. Matt is leaving to play with Perth next year, but he has been an inspirational captain. His is a Balgownie boy—I point out that I live in Balgownie as well—and he has done Wollongong proud. I also congratulate the media of Wollongong and, indeed, all the citizens of Wollongong for getting behind the teams. They came out in force. We have done it tough over a long period of time, but we have now got two national championship teams. This says that there is another lesson to be learned there, for the Rugby League. As people would understand, we have half a team in Wollongong. We have the St George-Illawarra Dragons—half a team. Next season eight of the home games are going to be played in Wollongong. I am suggesting, now we have had the success of regional teams in the National Basketball League and in the National Soccer League, that we should have all of those games in Wollongong. The St George-Illawarra Dragons should make WIN Stadium and Wollongong their home.We once had a proud team with the Illawarra Steelers. We were forced into amalgamations after the rugby league wars. We have a ground that is being brought up to international standard and a new grandstand is to be constructed. It is time now for the boffins in the National Rugby League to say that we need a regional team back in the Illawarra. We produce great champions, as we have over a long period of time, and in every sport you care to name now we are continuing to produce those champions. We are a champion sporting town. We know the value of sport in our local community, and it is time that the National Rugby League followed the lead of basketball and soccer and puts the Dragons in Wollongong. They will get the huge following and the success that they richly deserve. (Time expired)2732422:35:0027324Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Today, the New South Wales launch of Red Nose Day 2001 occurred at Richmond High School, an excellent local school. The fact that Richmond High was chosen for this state-wide launch was, quite justifiably, a source of great pride for the school and the broader Hawkesbury community. It was a recognition of the tremendous work done by Richmond High School in recent years in supporting the annual Red Nose Day appeal, in raising community awareness of the incidence of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and in raising funds to help in its prevention.The record of Richmond High School in supporting the SIDS campaign has been outstanding. Last year their extraordinary fundraising efforts eclipsed previous achievements, with a total of $50,000 being raised for Red Nose Day 2000. In the 12 years that they have supported Red Nose Day, Richmond High School has raised over $150,000. By any standards this is a truly remarkable achievement. It is even more so because most of the work is done by the students themselves. The leadership of Mrs Pat Pilgrim, Principal Ken Gill, and the Student Leadership team—this year headed up by Chelsea Dewson and Daniel Morton—has provided inspiration to the whole student body and has enabled the school to achieve so much.In addition to their impressive financial contribution to the SIDS cause, Richmond High have very effectively raised community awareness of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Their enthusiasm and passion have inspired many others in the Hawkesbury community and further afield and have drawn them into this most worthwhile cause. Also of great value is the fact that the annual Red Nose Day appeals have created within the school a culture of awareness and involvement in addressing community needs. This is generating an approach to life which is an inspiration to many and which will stay with most of the students throughout their lives—that is, a commitment to giving and to working for the good of others. Today's launch, as I understand it, was a huge success and I would have loved to have been there. The highlight was a RAAF fly-over with six red parachutists landing right on target. The world's biggest red nose is being created by painting the school's dome-shaped assembly hall red. An exciting range of fundraising activities is already under way and a wide variety of red nose merchandise is available. Amongst other things, it includes Red Nose Day ties, such as the one I am wearing tonight, designed by year 9 student Nicole Koheghi. Congratulations, Nicole, for this fine work.For Red Nose Day 2001, Richmond High is aiming to surpass last year's extraordinary effort of $50,000. Any donation to help the school in this superb effort would be warmly welcomed.Sudden Infant Death Syndrome is still, tragically, the most common specific cause of death of babies between one and 12 months old in Australia. Until the national prevention campaign began in the early 1990s, an average of over 400 young lives were lost a year. Since then, with a greater awareness of the problem, the number has steadily fallen to around 180 a year. This is still far too many. Even the loss of one young life is a tragedy and the anguish and pain is almost unbearable for the parents. As a community we need to continue to do what we can to promote SIDS awareness and prevention. The work of Richmond High School in doing this is to be highly commended. My congratulations and thanks for the outstanding leadership shown by the team at Richmond High School.2732522:39:0027325Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—I rise tonight in the adjournment debate to talk about a very dear friend of mine who unfortunately passed away on Sunday, 22 April. He was none other than the Mayor of the Redlands shire, Councillor Eddie Santagiuliana. He was born in 1946 in Bolzano in northern Italy and migrated to Australia in 1955 with his late father Ferdinando and his mother Cecilia. He settled in the Redlands and became, if you like, in later life the immigrant that made good and became the leader of his community.Our lives were very similar. We both came out from Italy at about the same time and settled in the same area, although he joined a different party from me. He joined the party that you belong to, Mr Speaker, and then later on he joined the National Party. He was one of these sorts of fellows that really loved his community and loved the area in which he lived, and he became one of its leaders. After being at the Capalaba state school together in 1956, we parted company. I do not completely remember him from those days but I remember him from later on when we met because we were both young Italians and we could not speak the language very well. But, as we later remarked, we certainly did not do too badly in the area.Almost 4,000 people turned out for his funeral. That would be an indication of the measure of respect for the man. He was absolutely loved by everybody. The Bayside Bulletin, the local newspaper, wrote columns and columns about him. One of the things that I will read out to you was a little story by Linda Muller in the Bayside Bulletin which is headed `The people talk ...'Christian Santagiuliana -that is his eldest son—says that Eddie had four children—his three sons and the shire.And while the family choked on a deep and personal grief at the funeral of the late Mayor Eddie Santagiuliana on Friday, his fourth `child' openly mourned.It goes on to talk about the number of people that were there.Everyone's story was personal—everyone cherished their own special memory of their Mayor, their Eddie.The funeral, the largest funeral yet to be seen in the shire, was a public display of one man's association with so many groups and individuals. And so it went on. But I want to particularly comment tonight on the bravery of his wife, Carolyn. They were never apart. They went to every function together, hand in hand, and they were a team. He had a fantastic family. His children—Christian, his eldest, Nicholas and his youngest son, Nathaniel—did their father proud at his funeral. It was a very emotional occasion, as you would appreciate, and he—I am sure he was looking down on them—would have been extraordinarily proud of what they did. The bravery of his wife is just something that you have to see to believe. Only a couple of days later she attended the Anzac Day dawn ceremony. She stood, in the dark, where her husband used to stand, and I had the honour of standing next to her and I let her know that I used to enjoy standing next to him as well.We attend a lot of functions—as all my colleagues here would know—in our electorates. As much as we enjoy them, it is always good to have someone you can talk to. The person that I would always stand next to and talk to was Eddie. We would say, `Hello, paesano' which is an Italian sort of greeting. He was very close to me and I miss him very much. He just lived and breathed the shire. He was interested only in his own area. He would do anything. He would call together all the new state members and ask, `What are you going to do for our area?' Probably the best thing that I can say about him is to read out an editorial by Brian Hurst that appeared in the Redlands Times not long after his death:I have always tried to understand why the Redlands is such a united community.I now know.Much of that community focus in the Redlands came from Eddie Santagiuliana. He had the ability to harness the community spirit of the Redlands in a way that produced invaluable benefits for the community.He was passionate about the Redlands—and so he went on. Eddie was a good friend, a gentle person, an honourable person, a very well-respected person. He was my friend and the friend of thousands of people around the Redlands shire. I will miss him terribly. I give my deepest sympathies to his whole family. You have lost a wonderful person and our area has lost a great champion and a great advocate. I extend my very deepest sympathies to all of his family and they will always have my support.2732622:44:0027326Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I would like to comment on the member for Bowman's tribute to Eddie Santagiuliana. He was a fine man of the shire. I share the other side of Moreton Bay, and I know that he worked tirelessly for his area in the way that was described by the member for Bowman, so I would like to pay my respects and put those words on the record as well.I was very pleased today to launch in Brisbane the Young Australian of the Year Awards 2002. I was launching them on behalf of the federal Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald. It was a wonderful day in the sunshine at Newstead House, overlooking the Brisbane River. The reason that these awards have been set up is so that every day young people in rural areas and communities, as well as in city communities, can contribute to the future of those communities. Avenues like the Young Australian of the Year Awards give the nation the opportunity to applaud the significant contribution that young people make to our country's future. The launch today was really calling for nominations in Queensland and I was very happy to be there and to launch these very important awards. There are seven award categories and they cover areas such as arts, sport, community service, environment, career achievements in science, technology and regional initiatives. It is very important that we recognise our youth and we have had a number of incredible winners to date, including people like Poppy King, Rebecca Chalmers, Nova Peris, Tan Lee, Brian Gazela and Ian Thorpe. The Young Australian of the Year for 2001 is medical student James Fitzpatrick. He was honoured for the great work that he does, particularly in indigenous communities in the area of health. These awards are very important. They acknowledge the hard work, excellence and dedication of our country's young achievers. The awards also mean that communities have a chance to acknowledge and appreciate the contributions in a wide range of fields important to the balanced growth of communities and the nation. The calibre of the award recipients in previous years has always been a splendid one, and young people aim high for their own personal development and also for the communities that they represent. It is their energy and creativity that ultimately will determine the future of communities throughout Australia and it is their efforts that have been significantly achieving and improving the quality of life of our regional communities—and they benefit us all here and now.So the federal government has been very proud to be the sponsor of these awards, particularly the regional initiative and career achievement award categories. It is a golden opportunity to facilitate great things for our communities, our regions and our youth. The government has also been involved in initiatives that encourage our young people and recognise their very important contribution. For example, last week the National Youth Media Awards were announced by Dr David Kemp, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. These awards were initiated by the Howard government and they have attracted an increased number of entries. So too does the government place great store in the discussions and the outcomes of the National Youth Roundtable. These roundtables include young people from a range of backgrounds and experiences and from all states and territories, and they bring them together so that they can present a wide range of views and ideas to share with the federal government.The federal government has also gotten very heavily involved with the very successful ABC Heywire program, which gives regional young Australians opportunities for their views to be aired on radio. The existence of programs and initiatives such as the Young Australian of the Year Awards and many of the others across the country is proof positive, if we need it, of the intense interest and commitment of so many of our young people. The government wants to make sure that the future Australia is a place in which all young Australians want to contribute and to help make a better place. That is why the government has worked in partnership with communities, industry, the private sector and all spheres of government to ensure that Australian communities remain strong and resilient in the face of the international economic environment and its subsequent impacts.I would like to acknowledge the sponsors this year all by name: the Coffee Club; McDonald's, which is sponsoring the sports award; the KCL Group, which is sponsoring the science and technology award; and a number of other sponsors such as Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank and the Hilton. I would like to pay tribute to the sponsors. I was very pleased to play a part in the official launch today of the Young Australian of the Year Awards.2732722:49:0027327Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in the parliament to honour the 125th anniversary of the Belmont State School, celebrated in Brisbane today, 5 June 2001. Accompanying that anniversary were significant celebratory activities at the school in which all the children of the school participated. In 1875 the land on which the school now stands was part of a farm named Belmont, which was owned by one August Carl Bernecker. He had children who were of school age and he organised a meeting of local farmers with a view to petitioning the Board of Education to build a school on the corner of Scrub and Old Cleveland Roads. Mr Bernecker offered two acres of his land, along with £61 9s 6d, which had been collected from local residents. On 4 October 1875, the Board of Education signed an agreement to pay £440 to a building contractor for the construction of a schoolroom, a teacher's residence and schoolroom furniture. On 5 June 1876, the school opened with an enrolment of 38 pupils. Average attendance in the first year was 47 pupils, and the head teacher was one Mr William Jennings. A lot has happened in the intervening century. In 1975 the school celebrated its centenary and its original enrolments of some 20 or 30 had by that stage risen to some 250, with 10 teachers on staff and with Mr G.W.T. Beverley as the school's 25th principal in 100 years of operation. Today the school at Belmont is under the management of principal Peter Prentice, who has been a fine and excellent principal of the school since 1990, and vice-principals Valmai Nolan and Jane Tuckett. The enrolment today, starting from those original 30 or so students, is now some 911. Its enrolments in languages other than English, which in the case of Belmont means Japanese, cover some 363 students—a very important contribution to the study of foreign languages in Brisbane's and Queensland's school system.The P&C Association is at present under the presidency of Brett Blade, its vice-presidents Mark Thomson and Anne McCarthy, secretary Margaret Blade and treasurer Scott Kilvington. The 125 Year Fete Convenors were Anne McCarthy, Jenny Reedman and Lisa Kalanjis, and it was my privilege to attend that fete last Sunday and see the extraordinary contribution which had been made by members of the fete committee to a very successful event.As for the centenary-plus celebrations, a 125 Years Work Team was formed in the year 2000 and comprises the following members: Valmai Nolan, Geoff Lines, Coralie Rogers, Jane Tuckett, Sharon Joel, Wendy McGregor, Rita Paine, Kaylene Bell, Sue Butler, Val Heinke, Tracey Knight-Turvey, Cathy Costello, Jenny Reedman and Barbara Green. These individuals, with support from other participants in the work of the 125 Years Work Team, all contributed to the important celebratory activities which were held at the Belmont State School today. Those celebratory activities involved a range of events, including a presentation on the school's history by School Captain Mitchell Enright and a range of choral renditions. There was also a roll call of students from 1915 to 1949. We had a presentation on the school's future by Jessica Gunawan, who is also a 2001 school captain, other choral renditions and presentations of choral poetry by classes 4B, 4L, 4M, 4N and 4T. I commend the school on this important anniversary—125 years. The school has achieved great things and I salute the Belmont State School, its management and the entire school community on reaching this important milestone.On 30 May, I attended the Dominican Justice Focus Breakfast at San Sisto College in the suburb of Carina in my electorate. The purpose of that breakfast—an initiative of San Sisto College, itself established by Dominican nuns—was to provide a forum for the discussion of social justice issues by young people from surrounding Catholic schools. The range of thoughtful topics which were initiated by the young people at the breakfast included the rights of women, the plight of refugees in Australian detention centres, reconciliation, the cost of justice, alcohol and drugs, and wage injustice for casual juniors—a very important issue for young people. I commend the San Sisto College and its school captains, Michelle Vujica and Rosey Theodoru, for their excellent hosting of this important Dominican Justice Focus Breakfast. (Time expired)2732822:54:0027328Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—I wish to call the attention of the House to the very great success of the small inland city of Mount Isa, as Paul Bowman and Nathan Fien have both made the State of Origin team. Both are sons of very famous local footballers. They have led us on many occasions to great victories in the North Queensland competition, the famous Foley Shield competition. I am sure they are very proud fathers, but we people of north-west Queensland are all very proud of those two young men. The city that produced Pat Rafter and Greg Norman can, of course, boast very great success in the area of sport. I also want to bring the attention of the House tonight to the most serious plight that has arisen in the banana industry. The banana industry is one of the biggest employers in this country, with probably 6,000 or 7,000 direct jobs involved in the industry. It produces between $200 million and $300 million worth of produce a year. It is an entirely Australian industry; there are no imports of bananas into Australia. The reason that there are no imports of bananas into Australia is that every other banana producing country on earth is rife with a large number of endemic diseases, which we desperately do not want and do not need in this country. It must be understood that, when you import fruit and vegetables into this country, with those fruit and vegetables invariably come fungi and microbes of a very pernicious nature; these organisms will inevitably come into this country. The work of AQIS over a long period of time has been a disgusting black mark upon the procedures of government throughout the last 15 years. We people in North Queensland have suffered most, with some $72 million worth of damage from the papaya fruit fly; probably another $15 million will be lost as a result of black sigatoka, which has broken out in North Queensland. A lot of these diseases are endemic in the Indonesian archipelago area and in New Guinea—some of them even into the Torres Strait. Eighty-five or 95 per cent of everything that comes out of the Torres Strait can be quarantined at the Horn Island airport and at the Jardine ferry. At the time of giving this address, neither of those points is being inspected. There are six inspectors on Thursday Island; but, as far as the Jardine ferry is concerned, all you have to do is pay the ferryman and you have almost a complete protection mechanism! Black sigatoka has got in. It is thought—once again, like the papaya fruit fly—that it has come in via the Torres Strait. There are a large number of other explanations, but that is one of them. In the same two-month period that AQIS decided to allow grapes from California into this country, there was a two-page article in the national magazine the Bulletin on the collapse of the grape growing industry in California, the destruction of one-tenth of the entire industry by Pierce's disease, which is carried by a vector insect called the glassy-winged sharpshooter. That article came out in the two-month period in which AQIS decided to allow grapes from that area into Australia. I am not going to canvass tonight the issue of apple importation; it does not pertain to my area, and many other people have spoken at great length on it. If this country wants to maintain a clean, green image, then AQIS had better forget about its commitment to free trade, because it seems to be a vehicle for imposing the policies of free trade upon this country rather than a vehicle to protect this country against the introduction of pernicious diseases. We have had outbreaks of fire blight in the apple industry, we have had outbreaks of papaya fruit fly and now black sigatoka, and we ask ourselves, `What are these people doing?'If that is not bad enough in itself, if you want to know what AQIS are doing, look no further than the grape decision or the durian decision. Our mangoes are not allowed in the United States; we have a seed weevil. They just say, `You can't come in; you've got a seed weevil.' We allow durians in from Thailand; Thailand has a seed weevil. AQIS had better decide whether they are a department implementing the policies of free trade or whether they are a department trying to protect this country—not only our productive environment but also our natural environment, which is under threat from introduced species. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative. 23:00:0027329House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices27329The following notices were given:WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith to present a bill for an act to amend legislation in respect of the Governor-General, and for related purposes.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock to present a bill for an act relating to the application of the Criminal Code to certain offences, and for other purposes. 7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch to present a bill for an act to amend the Space Activities Act 1998, and for related purposes.8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge to present a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to health, and for related purposes.MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr Mossfield to move:That this House:(1) notes the Government's decision in this year's Budget to fund the Scoresby Freeway in Melbourne;(2) notes the Government's commitment to maintain this freeway as a toll-free road because it considers the project to be a road of national importance;(3) notes that the Scoresby Freeway will run through three marginal government seats;(4) acknowledges the Government's decision to partially fund the Western Sydney Orbital;(5) notes that the Orbital will form a vital section of the 18 500 km National Highway system;(6) notes that there are already three toll roads, the M2, M4 and M5, feeding Western Sydney; (7) condemns the Government's decision to impose a toll on motorists who use the Orbital; and (8) calls on the Government to fully fund the Western Sydney Orbital as a National Highway and ensure the added burden of a toll does not fall inequitably on Western Sydney motorists.MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr Mossfield to move:That this House:(1) remembers the Australian soldiers and sailors who served in hazardous conditions in close proximity to the atomic testing at both Maralinga and Monte Bello Island;(2) acknowledges that many of these soldiers and sailors have since died from the radiation effects of that testing;(3) acknowledges that many are still alive and suffering from a variety of illnesses related to their service in these hazardous areas;(4) calls on the Government to seek compensation from the British Government who conducted the atomic testing and used Australian servicemen as experimental guinea-pigs; and(5) calls on the Government to amend the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1991 to include these servicemen as veterans and thus ensure their entitlement to vital medical care.Answers to Questions in Writing27331The following answers to questions were circulated:27331(Question No. 2347)234727331Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr Ripoll83EOxleyALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 7 February 2001:(1) Is it a fact that under the New Tax System (GST) provisions, veterans on a Disability Pension Special Rate do not receive a full sales tax exemption when purchasing a motorcycle.(2) Prior to the introduction of the GST, did veterans on a Disability Pension Special Rate receive full sales tax exemption when purchasing any type of motor vehicle.(3) Has the definition of the type of motor vehicle purchased by veterans on a Disability Pension Special Rate been amended to exclude the purchase of a motorcycle; if so, why.(4) What is the estimated saving to the Government from the exclusion of motorcycles from the sales tax exemption for veterans on a Disability Pension Special Rate.27331Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No sales tax is payable on the purchase of a motorcycle. Wholesale sales tax was abolished following the introduction of the GST on 1 July 2000. However, GST is payable on the purchase of a motorcycle.(2) Yes.(3) From 1 July 2000, veterans in receipt of disability pension at the Special Rate who had been eligible for sales tax exemption on motor vehicles became eligible under section 38-505 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services) Tax Act 1999 to exemption from GST in respect to the purchase of a `car'. The definition of a car for the purposes of section 38-505 is the same as that used in section 995-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. This definition expressly excludes a motorcycle.(4) On 20 March 2001, I announced that the Government intends to introduce a rebate scheme under which Special Rate Disability Pensioners will be eligible for a rebate of the cost of GST on the purchase of their motorcycles. This rebate would be paid as special assistance under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and would ensure that these veterans who ride motorcycles are treated fairly compared to their fellow veterans who prefer to drive a car. Administrative arrangements are currently being made to give effect to the rebate. This scheme is expected to be operational later this year and would be retrospective to 1 July 2000. 27331(Question No. 2479)247927331Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 March 2001:(1) How many medical officers are currently employed by (a) each Service and (b) the Defence Force as a whole (i) on a permanent full-time uniformed basis, (ii) on a permanent part-time uniformed basis and (iii) as civilians on a sessional or fee for service basis.(2) How many (a) surgeons, (b) anaesthetists and (c) other specialist medical officers are currently employed by each Service and by the Defence Force as a whole (i) on a permanent full-time uniformed basis, (ii) on a permanent part-time uniformed basis and (iii) as civilians on a sessional or fee for service basis.(3) How many of the medical officers and specialist medical officers referred to in parts (1) and (2) are currently deployed in (a) East Timor, (b) Bougainville and (c) elsewhere overseas in support of ADF military operations.(4) What special practice allowances and other incentive benefits are payable to reservist medical officers who agree to serve overseas.(5) For the latest year for which data is available, what was the cost to Defence of (a) sessional general practitioner services, (b) fee for service general practitioner services, (c) sessional specialist services and (d) fee for service specialist services. (6) Does Defence have a uniform policy on the basis on which fee for service consultations should be remunerated; if so, what are the details.(7) Has the Surgeon-General completed the Review of Attraction and Retention of Medical and Dental Officers that was commissioned in May 1996; if so, what were the findings of his review and what action, if any, has the Government taken as a result; if the review has not be completed, what is the reason for the delay.(8) Did the Joint Chiefs of Staff agree in April 1998 to the establishment of a proposed specialist career and salary structure for Defence medical officers; if so, what was the reason for this decision.(9) Has Defence failed to date to pursue the proposed new career and salary structure through to finalisation before the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal; if so, what is the reason for its failure to do so.(10) When does the Government now expect to be able to implement the proposed new career and salary structure for Defence medical officers.(11) What action, if any, has the Government taken in response to the Auditor-General's recommendation of May 1997 that Defence reach agreement with civilian hospital authorities to enable ADF medical personnel to work in areas where they will be exposed to the emergency treatment of wounds and injuries.27332Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b) ServiceFull-timeReserveCivilianRAN341446Army5136013RAAF451408ADF13064472(2) (a) Surgeons ServiceFull-timeReserveCivilianRANNil1219Army15756RAAFNil1443ADF183117(b) Anaesthetists ServiceFull-timeReserveCivilianRANNil1280ArmyNil27146RAAFNil1376ADFNil52297(c) Other Specialists ServiceFull-timeReserveCivilianRANNil15NilArmyNil704RAAFNil1131ADFNil1988(3) (a) 15(b) 3(c) Nil(4) Civil Practice Support Allowance is payable to all self-employed Reserve specialist medical officers who deploy on overseas operations.(5) For the period 1 July 2000 - 28 March 2001 (a) $1,132,921.67(b) $1,157,989.59(c) $434,547.79(d) $13,257,047.93(6) Yes. Health Policy Directive (HPD) 906 - Fees Payable for Services Rendered by Civilian Medical, Dental and Allied Health Practitioners provides a guideline for remuneration on a State by State basis and varies according to the cost of living and other constraints that may be imposed on health practitioners. HPD 906 was last updated in January 2001. (7) The Study into the Attraction and Retention of Medical and Dental Officers in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) by the retired Surgeon General, Major General D G Rossi, was completed in January 1997. It made 62 separate recommendations. Over 50% of these recommendations have been implemented. Many of the others have been subsumed into other major projects such as JP 2060 - Deployable Health Support, the Specialist Officer Career Structure and the Specialist Officer Salary Structure. Other recommendations have been overtaken by events, are considered no longer relevant or did not attract universal acceptance by the Services.(8) In Agendum 8/98, on 17 March 1998 the Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) acknowledged that the current career and salary structure for medical officers no longer met the aspirations of young, newly qualified medical graduates. Both recruitment and retention had deteriorated significantly and, at that time, there was a 30% shortage of uniformed medical officers. COSC agreed to the implementation of a Specialist Officer Salary Structure (SOSS), for officers employed for specific specialist duty, as part of the ADF Pay Structure Review.To be effective, remuneration structures should be closely linked to the full range of conditions of employment. Remuneration forms only part of the total employment package and should support, and be supported by, a range of other measures. These include, but are not limited to, career progression, training and professional development. Accordingly, it was decided to develop a Specialist Officer Career Structure for those specialist officer categories being examined under SOSS.(9) Defence remains committed to achieving a new medical officers' career and salary structure. Several important factors have led to the delay of the realisation of this proposal. Firstly, East Timor deployments took the focus away. Secondly, Defence was awaiting the release of the White Paper, which was to give direction on capabilities, including JP2060 - Deployable Health Capability. Until JP2060 identified the number of medical officers we required to provide deployable health support it was impossible to design a sustainable career structure. Defence has moved the milestone of presentation to the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal out to accommodate the realities of this difficult and complex issue. To do otherwise would be to risk the integrity of the review process and compromise the business case for a revised career and salary structure.(10) The External Review into Remuneration currently led by Major General Nunn is due to report to Government on 31 August 2001. It is highly unlikely that any cases will be put forward to the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal until the Government has considered the recommendations and further direction given.(11) Many major Defence Health Service units have entered into a wide variety of agreements with civilian health facilities to allow Defence Health personnel to develop the skills they require to support operational deployments. These range from medical and nursing officers and medical assistants working in the accident and emergency departments of major Sydney teaching hospitals to medical assistants working with metropolitan ambulance services. Each agreement is tailored to suit local circumstances and many have been varied recently due to the increase in operational tempo created by concurrent deployments to Bougainville and East Timor. 27333(Question No. 2511)251127333Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4 April 2001:(1) What sum has the Federal Government spent on the National Highway since March 1996:(a) at the Weakleys Drive and New England Highway intersection, (b) at the Thornton Road and New England Highway intersection, (c) at the Anderson Drive and New England Highway intersection and (d) on acquisition and planning of the National Highway from Seahampton to Belford along the Kurri Kurri corridor.27334Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a), (b) and (c) The Federal Government has funded installation of traffic signals at the intersections of the New England Highway and Weakleys Drive and Thorton Road. The work was undertaken simultaneously with the Thornton Road intersection opening on 21 October 1996 and the Weakleys Drive intersection opening on 18 November 1996. The total value of the project was $742,000, all of which has been spent since March 1996. Work has also continued on the combined interchange project involving the upgrading of Anderson Drive, Weakleys Drive and Thornton Road intersections with the New England Highway. $622,222 has been spent on this project during the March 1996 - April 2001 period. Maintenance and minor works have also been undertaken on these intersections. (d) Since March 1996 the Federal Government has expended $2,324,000 on planning and pre-construction works on the Kurri-Kurri corridor, which is also known as the F3 to Branxton or Minmi to Allandale project.27334(Question No. 2512)251227334Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4 April 2001:(1) Is the Weakleys Drive and New England Highway intersection part of the National Highway and therefore the responsibility of the Federal Government for funding.(2) Has his Department estimated the cost of upgrading the intersection with flyovers.(3) When will funding be made available.27334Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. The Weakleys Drive and New England Highway intersection forms part of the Sydney-Brisbane National Highway corridor, and as such, the intersection is the Federal Government's responsibility.(2) The Department of Transport and Regional Services has sought information on the estimated cost of the project from the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority who have advised an estimated cost of $23.8 million for the intersection at Weakleys Drive and the New England Highway. (3) Like all National Highway road projects, funding will be considered in the context of budgetary allocations, and in relation to the broader national road funding priorities in NSW and across Australia. 27334(Question No. 2514)251427334McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 5 April 2001:(1) What legislation set the retiring age of judges in each State and Territory.(2) What is the retiring age of judges in each State and Territory.27334Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:As I do not have responsibility for legislation dealing with State and Territory judges, my Department does not keep records in relation to State and Territory judges. However, my Department has been able to obtain the following information through its library. (1) The retiring ages for judges at the Supreme Court and District Court level for each State and Territory is set out below. Supreme Court judges. State/TerritoryRetiring AgeLegislationAustralian Capital Territory70section 70 Supreme Court Act 1933Queensland70section 23 Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991New South Wales72section 44 Judicial Officers Act 1986Northern Territory70section 38 Supreme Court Act 1979South Australia70section 13A Supreme Court Act 1935Tasmania70section 6A Supreme Court Act 1887Victoria70section77 Constitution Act 1975Western Australia70section 3 Judges Retirement Act 1937District Court judges or equivalent State/TerritoryRetiring AgeLegislationAustralian Capital Territory*--Queensland70section 14 District Court Act 1967New South Wales72section 44 Judicial Officers Act 1986Northern Territory*--South Australia70section 16 District Court Act 1991Tasmania*--Victoria70section 13 County Court Act 1958Western Australia70section 16 District Court of Western Australia Act 1969* There is no District Court or equivalent in this jurisdiction.(2) See response to question 1.27335(Question No. 2522)252227335Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 April 2001:(1) Will he provide the Parliament with an analysis of the fuel consumption of the current Australian passenger and light vehicle fleet.(2) Is it the case that the fuel consumption of Australia's passenger and light vehicle fleet is among the worst, if not the worst, in the OECD.(3) Have these vehicles an overall energy efficiency of no more than 15 to 20%.(4) Are the high prices that motorists pay for petrol compounded by the fact that their vehicles waste 80% or more of the energy contained in the fuel.(5) Do these low efficiency vehicles produce significant volumes of carbon dioxide and other air pollutants because they burn such large quantities of fuel for such little mechanical output.(6) What measures have the Government introduced to ensure that manufacturers significantly improve the energy efficiency of their vehicles.(7) Is the current energy labelling program used on refrigerators and clothes dryers which the Government has decided to introduce for new cars, likely to see a significant improvement in the average energy efficiency of Australian made vehicles; if so, what is the Governments estimate of the likely improvement in vehicle fuel consumption and energy efficiency; if not, why not.(8) As a result of the current requirement for the motor vehicle industry to improve fuel economy by 15% over business as usual improvements, what is the Governments estimate of energy efficiency improvement and reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.(9) Will any reduction in emissions be swamped by the expected growth in the number of vehicles brought about by the Governments bias toward road transport over rail transport.(10) Is the Minister aware of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles that was set up by the Clinton administration with the goal of increasing the fuel efficiency of the US passenger vehicle fleet to 80 miles per gallon for a medium sized car; if so, what measures has this Government taken to implement such a scheme in Australia. (11) Could this kind of scheme significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector as well as provide fuel price relief Australian motorists.27336Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The motor vehicle industry reports annually against an agreed National Average Fuel Consumption (NAFC) target for new passenger cars. The NAFC target is included in an industry voluntary code of practice. The most recent (2000) target figure for NAFC was set at 8.2 litres/100km. The Government is working with the motor vehicle industry to set a NAFC target 15% below business as usual for 2010. (2) It is difficult to compare the fuel consumption across different countries due to the different assessment methods used. As part of the process of global harmonisation across the motor vehicle industry, the Government is planning on introducing a new Australian Design Rule (ADR) to come into force in 2003 that will mandate a new fuel consumption testing procedure in line with international standards. (3) Yes. (4) The thermal efficiency of the internal combustion engine is the constraint within which all conventionally powered vehicles operate. However through the fuel consumption label and fuel consumption guide consumers are being educated that they can reduce the cost and environmental impact of road transport through the selection of more fuel efficient vehicles. (5) The level of greenhouse emissions is directly related to the quantity of fuel consumed by a vehicle.(6) The Government has introduced a range of initiatives, to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector as outlined in the Prime Minister's statement: Safeguarding the Future announced in 1997 and Measures for a Better Environment in 1999. Key elements:· 15 % improvement over business as usual to the National Average Fuel Consumption(NAFC) target by 2010;· Introduction of the fuel consumption label, as of 1 January 2001;· Improved fuel quality standards; and· Promotion of alternative fuels.(7) Yes. The Australian Greenhouse Office estimates that the introduction of mandatory fuel consumption labelling would result in savings of approximately 800,000 tonnes per annum of greenhouse gas emissions in 2010.(8) and (9)The Australian Greenhouse Office advises that estimates have not been finalised.(10) and (11)Yes, the Government is aware of the US program. The Government has outlined a package of measures to reduce greenhouse emissions from Australia's motor vehicle fleet as mentioned above.27336(Question No. 2523)252327336Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 April 2001:(1) Is he able to provide an analysis of the energy consumption and carbon dioxide levels of the transport sector.(2) Has the transport sector had the highest rate of growth of carbon dioxide emissions in the Australian economy; if so, what is the cause of this rapid increase and what measures has the Government adopted to stem this growth. (3) Has much of this increase come from the growth in road transport, in particular, road freight, that has taken place at the expense of rail transport.(4) Is diesel hauled rail transport at least four times as energy efficient as road transport and consequently emits one quarter as much carbon dioxide per tonne-kilometre, as reported by the Australian Railway Association.(5) Is electric railway haulage 40% more efficient again than diesel-hauled rail transport and emits even less carbon dioxide per tonne kilometre, as reported by international railway operators.(6) Has he stated in the past that his first priority is for road transport and rail comes a distant second.(7) Is it the policy of the Government to force down apparent transport costs by allowing the road freight industry to be carried by low paid owner drivers who can barely afford the cost of fuel let alone proper maintenance.(8) Does the road transport industry receive subsidies in the form of free fuel, un-recovered road construction and repair costs and services that equals or exceeds 90% of their operating expenses, as reported by the Bureau of Transport Economics.(9) If so, will the Government act to recover a higher proportion of these costs and so improve the competitiveness of the much more energy efficient railways.(10) Is it a fact that (a) Federal funding has not been made available for the construction of new urban rail systems in NSW and (b) billions of dollars been made available or promised for the construction of new urban road works such as the Western Sydney Orbital.(11) What is the estimate of the reductions in carbon dioxide emissions in kilograms per dollar invested resulting in improvements in travel efficiency for the Western Sydney Orbital compared with the proposed but un-funded Epping to Castle Hill Railway.(12) Is he able to supply estimates for the quantity of carbon dioxide emitted for an equivalent distance travelled by a commuter using (a) a private car, (b) an electric train and (c) a bicycle.27337Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (2), and (3) The National Greenhouse Gas Inventory contains the requested information. The Government has a range of measures in place or planned to address carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector as detailed in the answer to Question no 2522.(4) Rail can be more energy efficient than road for some transport tasks eg long distance heavy freight. The Bureau of Transport Economics estimates that on average, rail produces one third of the carbon dioxide emissions of road freight per tonne kilometre. (5) Electric railway haulage can produce considerably less carbon dioxide emissions than diesel-hauled rail transport, if either hydro or nuclear power is the source of the electricity. However, if the electricity is sourced from coal-powered generators, then emissions from electric rail haulage could be higher than those from diesel-hauled rail. Once generation and transmission are taken into account, carbon dioxide emissions per unit of energy can be considerably higher for electric rail than for diesel-powered rail. (6) No.(7) No.(8) and (9) No. The Bureau of Transport Economics advises that none of its research suggest 90% under recovery.(10a) The Commonwealth has a $250m mainline rail track upgrade program which is improving the performance of this key national infrastructure.(10b) The Western Sydney Orbital (WSO) will be privately constructed and operated, and financed largely by a user toll. The Commonwealth will make a total contribution of $356m to the project. (11) The WSO Environmental Impact Statement does not address the question of carbon dioxide reductions. The proposed Epping to Castle Hill Railway is the responsibility of the NSW Government. (12) Current BTE estimates indicate that the fleet average performance for Australian cars is 250 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per passenger kilometre. Per passenger emissions from electric trains depends critically on the source of the electricity and load factor of the train, however, an average rate would be 120 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per passenger kilometre. Bicycle use generates no emissions.