2001-06-263919REPS2854902001-06-26—————The House met at 2.30 p.m.Miscellaneous2854910000The CLERKThe Clerk—I inform the House of the absence of the Speaker, who will be in attendance later this day. In accordance with standing order 14, the Deputy Speaker, as Acting Speaker, will take the chair.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) thereupon took the chair and read prayers.Ministerial Arrangements2854914:31:0028549Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Acting Speaker, I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will return to the House and to question time shortly. He is currently farewelling the Indonesian President and his party from Canberra. I suggest that any questions to the minister might await his return, but if people want to ask them now I would be happy to take them on his behalf. I also inform the House that the Treasurer has an unavoidable commitment which will require him to leave question time at approximately 3.30 today. The Minister for Finance and Administration will then answer any question which would otherwise be directed to the Treasurer.Questions Without Notice285492854914:31:0028549Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. I refer to the government's weekend announcement of $100 million funding for the Christmas Island spaceport. Where is this $100 million shown in last month's budget? If it is not in the budget, will you be paying for it by raising taxes, cutting programs or spending more of the surplus? Minister, where is the money coming from?28549Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for his question and indicate that the government is delighted to examine very thoroughly, through the Strategic Investment Coordinator and that process which has been so beneficial for investment and jobs in this country, any project that is good for Australia. The project that the honourable member referred to on Christmas Island went through a vigorous evaluation under that process before ultimately being brought to government for further consideration. It provides an opportunity that places Australia in a very good position in this area of technology, it provides a significant number of jobs that will go to Australians and it provides an opportunity for that particular territory of Australia, Christmas Island, to get an industry when it has been in the past struggling significantly, particularly since the casino was closed down a few years ago.The honourable member would be aware of a contingency reserve which contains numerous amounts of money of a broad and general nature for areas that require support, and there is always such a need. If one follows the argument of the member for Melbourne, one would simply say that government ceases the night of the budget and does absolutely nothing else until a further appropriation bill goes through, either at additional estimates time or the following year. Government and administration of this nation is a movable thing, and there is a need to provide for contingencies, such as those proposals that are full of merit. This was a proposal full of merit, and the government is proud to stand by it.2854914:34:0028549Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House what steps the government is taking to support families and communities in rural and regional Australia, and is he aware of any alternative policies in this area?28549Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I think we would all agree that the nation is in the end the sum total of the individual Australians that make it up. The relationships between us are the glue that bind us together. To the extent that those relationships work well, the community and the nation are the stronger; to the extent that they do not, the nation is the weaker.In the midst of a strong community that is in many ways doing very well, particularly economically, we are all, I think, concerned about some of the indicators that reflect relationships that are not working as well as they might, whether those things are youth homelessness, drugs, the very worrying level of youth suicide in this country or the problem of domestic violence—something I know that all members of this place would be very concerned about. The booklet I have here, which generated quite a bit of interest last week, tells the story of 17 communities across Australia where people are trying at a local level to break a cycle of violence, particularly domestic violence, including in Aboriginal communities. There is much that governments can do. That would include, for example and very importantly, sound economic management. There is no doubt that keeping employment opportunities up, keeping housing mortgages down and creating an environment where people can do well economically are very important. Over and above that, there are a lot of things that governments themselves cannot do on their own but that communities can, with government help and government leadership, take forward.The government's stronger families and communities strategy—a very substantial package of around $240 million—emphasises the real commitment of the Liberal-National Party government to an investment in the bonds that underpin family and community life and, indeed, enables community groups of the sort outlined in this book to really take forward their work in coming to grips with some of the very real and the very ugly problems that some people do confront, unfortunately. There are a range of other programs that the government also runs: $6 million for community based relationship support groups; over $900 million to the states and territories to assist them in providing accommodation support, respite care and day services to people with disabilities; $60 million towards establishing youth homelessness prevention and early intervention services; and, this year, $115 million for a new alcohol education and rehabilitation foundation to address the problems of alcohol abuse, which often manifests itself in domestic violence. This week, it ought to be remembered, is Drug Action Week. The estimated cost of illicit drug abuse to the Australian community is about $1.7 billion a year. It can have, as we all know, a truly devastating impact on families. We have committed around $500 million to the Tough on Drugs strategy, which fights illicit drugs on three fronts: health, education and law enforcement.The honourable member asked about alternative proposals. You could start by pointing to the enormous damage done to families in this country by cripplingly high mortgage rates—remember all those television programs where people were unable to hang on to their homes any more?—by very high unemployment rates and by small businesses falling over. Labor consistently failed to find ways to support Australian families. We see that continued now. The Leader of the Opposition, in response to what we are doing on law enforcement, particularly in relation to drugs, claimed that progress has been `slow, patchy and uncoordinated'. If he is not talking down the economy or talking down our academic and educational achievements, he is talking down what we are doing to wind back the problem of drug abuse in this country. Labor continually paid and continue to pay inadequate attention to the underlying causes of homelessness, and they have ignored the level of need of carers and of people with disabilities.Governments cannot solve all the problems in what is happening to relationships in the community—domestic violence and those sorts of things—but strong leadership and providing communities with the tools they need to tackle these problems are very much part and parcel of the commitment of this government to the nation's families.2855014:40:0028550Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is also to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I refer to reports of your $1 billion plan for an August announcement of a rural and regional incentive package. Are you planning to pay for this package by raising taxes, cutting programs or spending more of the surplus? Deputy Prime Minister, just where is that money coming from, or is it coming out of the same hollow log as funding for the space project? 28551Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The first point I would make is that there has never been a $1 billion plan. That is a bit of idle speculation that you have picked up for the most base of political purposes. When it comes to doing things for rural and regional Australia, there is an incredibly long list, all of which have been done without it being put on the national bankcard, the way you did with every initiative you undertook. We just have to take the reduction in Commonwealth debt, taxpayers' debt, if you like—governments do not have money; only taxpayers do, and when it is a debt of the sort that was run up under the Leader of the Opposition it is a taxpayers' debt. And that is what you had—$96 billion of it. It increased by $80 million in the five years that the man once described as the world's greatest Treasurer was in charge of the government that you were a part of. It blew out by $80 billion. The reduction in debt under the current government saves us around $4,000 million a year in interest alone. That sort of money has enabled us to put in place a range of very valuable programs: whether it has been around $700 million for more doctors, better services and more nurses in rural and regional areas, whether it has been $1.2 million for local roads, whether it has been $700 million for a water quality and salinity action plan, to be matched by the states, whether it has been the Regional Solutions program, or whether it has been stronger families and communities, which I have just touched on, we did not have to put the taxpayer into debt anymore to do it.2855114:43:0028551May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the economic effects of policies aimed at increasing government spending at the same time as reducing revenue?Opposition members interjecting—10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—The honourable member for McPherson will start her question again.83BMrs MAY—Would the Treasurer inform the House of the economic effects of policies aimed at increasing government spending at the same time as reducing revenue? Has the Treasurer seen reports of spending commitments leading to any new schemes for raising revenue, and would he inform the House of the effects such schemes would have on ordinary Australians?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—What sort of revenue are you going to raise for the rural package? Tell us about the contingency reserve.28551Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Whenever he leans back and engages in exaggerated laughter, to the extent that you can see his braces, you know that he is worried about the question, and more worried about the answer.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—I would cover up the braces, if I were you. Our attention was really taken by the fact that this morning when we opened up our Sydney Morning Herald we saw a foretaste of precisely what the Labor Party has in mind in relation to its so-called knowledge nation.The knowledge nation has been coming for the last five years. During the week we heard that Knowledge Nation is not just a policy; Knowledge Nation will be a 10-year program when it is announced, which is quite impressive. Stalin had only five-year programs, but the Leader of the Opposition is going to have a 10-year program in relation to his knowledge nation. But how, pray tell, would this knowledge nation be funded? A clue to that came in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, where Michelle Grattan reported that the Labor Party is considering government issued bonds. The article states:Government-issued bonds—along the lines of national war bonds—could be used to finance capital expansion of Australia's higher education and research under an idea promoted by Labor's innovation spokeswoman—that is a very innovative financing method—Dr Carmen Lawrence. She floated the proposal at a private meeting of deputy vice-chancellors ... in Brisbane last week. She stressed it was her personal plan and not Labor policy. If a budget is in surplus, a government does not issue bonds. Since this government has come to office—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—No, you steal from the contingency reserve.CT4Mr COSTELLO—He always interjects loudest when he is at his weakest. Since this government was elected in 1996, in net terms we have not issued any bonds because we do not have to cover a deficit in our budget. Over the last six years, we have not been issuing bonds; we have been redeeming bonds, we have been buying them back. The Labor Party, in its last five years in office, first of all ran deficits and then it sold assets and could not fund its deficits. Then it went onto financial markets and issued an additional net $80 billion worth of bonds. Over the last five years of coalition budgeting, we have funded our budgets and we have redeemed in net terms $60 billion of those bonds.If your budget were in surplus, you would not need to issue a bond. A bond is a borrowing by the government. Let us get this clear: a bond is a way of a government borrowing. The only possible reason for ever issuing a bond—whether you call it a Treasury bond, an Aussie bond, an innovation bond or an education bond—would be a deficit budget. The only reason you would issue a bond is to borrow money to fund a deficit. So here we have revealed in the Sydney Morning Herald by the shadow minister for innovation a plan to issue bonds, which is a plan to run a budget deficit. There is no other reason why you would issue a bond. Dr Lawrence has said, `We'll call it an education bond rather than a Treasury bond.' It does not matter what you call it; a bond is a borrowing from the community. The article goes on:They would carry only a modest rate of interest.If anybody is going to buy a bond, they buy a bond at prevailing interest rates. Otherwise, why would they put money into this investment where they could get two per cent, when they could put it into another investment where they would get five or 10 per cent? There is no such thing as a moderate rate of interest; there is a market rate of interest. That is what a government has to pay. The first thing is that you cannot have a below market rate of interest on a government bond; you have a government rate of interest. That is the first point. The second point is that, if the government is out there borrowing savers' money, that will drive up interest rates. It cannot have any other effect. If the government is borrowing, that means the demand for money is greater than it otherwise would be and you drive up interest rates. We have already seen Econtech say that just a minor roll-back of $4 billion will put up interest rates by one per cent—one per cent for every Australian mortgage holder. And now we have an education bond which could put up interest rates by another one per cent. No wonder the electors of Aston ought to be worried. The last time the Labor Party was in office in Aston, people were paying an extra $850 a month on their mortgage.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Rubbish.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Rubbish, he says. You were in office in 1990 and the mortgage interest rate was 17 per cent. The last time the Labor Party held the seat of Aston in 1990, the people of Aston were paying 17 per cent interest on their mortgage, and we are not going to let you forget it. They were paying $850 a month extra on their mortgage, and that was after-tax money. If you were a resident of Aston, you had to earn $1,700 a month extra in 1990 to be in the same position as you are in now. What does roll-back mean? Higher interest rates. What do education bonds mean? Higher interest rates. What does borrowing from the public mean? It means that the Labor Party has only one plan. It is not a 10-year plan to invest in education; it is a plan to drive the budget right back to where it was when the Labor Party was last in government.2855214:51:0028552Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will you confirm that your $15,000 wine consultant, Mr Peter Bourne, advised that 58 dozen bottles of wine be purchased for use at Kirribilli House and the Lodge and that they be laid down for four to five years to mature? Is it true that, after just one year, 46 dozen of these bottles are now missing, presumed drunk? Why did you ignore Mr Bourne's $15,000 advice? Prime Minister, where has the wine gone? 28553Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—If I were agnostically inclined, that question would shift me. I simply say to the member for Banks that I was advised that you got a better deal if you had a wine consultant.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—You drank it.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I would that the duties of my office allowed me to indulge in the way that the honourable gentleman's question suggests, but I have to confess that, although I do enjoy a drink—that is known and it is not a matter for which I am the least bit ashamed—I do not think I enjoy it to the extent suggested by the member for Banks. I think this question speaks more of the priorities of the opposition. Let me say out of total charity to the member for Banks that I will cause a thorough search to be made, I will hunt it down and, what is more, I will share some of the proceeds of the search, if the honourable gentleman is so disposed.I think it is important that people are being entertained at the official establishment. Bear in mind that this is quite a long-range plan. It is not a 10-year plan but it is quite a long-range plan. If you had any faith at all in the compassion of the Australian people towards your side of politics, you would actually welcome it, but of course you clearly do not. I simply say to the member for Banks that we have the most historic visit by a foreign leader; with the help of the member for Werriwa, Tony Blair claims to have discovered the third way; and Carmen Lawrence has clearly discovered the fourth way. In context, the member for Banks did ask me about investment of Commonwealth funds. One of the more intriguing aspects of the suggestion made by the member for Fremantle in her remarks about education bonds—and I suppose you could have wine bonds as well—is that, as well as going out and borrowing the money for educational purposes, which the Treasurer so effectively pointed out is just another way of going into deficit, she actually made the quite remarkable—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order to do with relevance: we need to assist the Prime Minister to `find a way home'.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—There is no point of order. ZD4Mr HOWARD—This is a very serious opposition, isn't it? I make the very serious point that one of the more remarkable things about the intervention in the economic debate by the member for Fremantle is that she says that if you issued a bond to finance education it would also add to national savings. Apparently you are going to raise it for education but not spend it on education, because it is going to add to national savings.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance: there is clearly no relationship between this particular section of the answer and where it started—although there may be an explanation in it.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I thank the honourable Leader of the Opposition for his point of order. I would say that the Prime Minister is being totally relevant and that it would be very difficult for anyone to be irrelevant to the member for Banks' question.2855314:57:0028553Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the levels of university funding and revenues? Minister, are you aware of any alternative financing proposals in relation to this issue?28553Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Sturt for his question. I am delighted to announce that this year the revenue of Australia's universities is at a record level of $9.5 billion. The government's support for science and innovation has grown from $3.8 billion in 1995-96 to $4.7 billion in 2001-02. Through the innovation action plan, Backing Australia's Ability, the government is investing heavily in research infrastructure, with an additional $738 million over the next five years, including major national research facilities. We have been able to achieve this investment in innovation and education because we have brought the budget back into surplus; we have filled Kim Beazley's $10 billion black hole. This is funded investment by the government in Australia's future. The problem that the Leader of the Opposition faces is that he cannot work out how to fund this knowledge nation policy that he is talking about—the policy that is based on the proposition that Australia is a dumb country. He cannot work out how to fund it. Senator Conroy pointed out to him that there are a couple of very good options. He could consider cuts—and I have to say that he has already decided to cut boarding schools. He could raise taxes—he has not come clean on that. Then the member for Fremantle, the shadow minister for industry, comes running up with her bright idea: she is going to take the budget back into deficit; she is going to use debt to fund it. Credit-card Carmen's idea is to bring the budget back into deficit. Lindsay Tanner, the member for Melbourne, made I think an honest statement—he is the Stephen Conroy of the House of Representatives—when in an interview with Peter Lewis on 1 June he said that this is the ultimate pitfall for Labor governments, because as soon as you allow the fiscal position to deteriorate and as soon as you start trying to patch it up with bandaids, creating an unsustainable position, you are finished. And here is the member with the box of bandaids. She has already tried to patch up knowledge nation, because they cannot work out how to fund this 10-year plan.The Leader of the Opposition has got form here. He left the Australian economy with so many fiscal bandaids wrapped around it, it looked like a mummy at the end of Labor's term in office. And now we have the fiscal third way from the member for Fremantle. She has finally got a way of funding this package. At the moment there is turmoil on the opposition side about knowledge nation. A month ago we had Glenn Milne reporting that Beazley's office was furiously rewriting Barry Jones's draft to produce a document. As Glenn Milne wrote:... which Jones's supporters see as another example of Beazley's office dumbing down policy.That is what the supporters of Barry Jones already think about knowledge nation. They cannot fund it; they cannot write it. A week before Michelle Grattan tells us, `It's going to be out next week,' one of the shadow ministers was up there trying to get something new into it. That is what she said: `They are going to put something new into it,' and `This is the way I think you can fund it to drive the budget back into deficit.' We have a weak Leader of the Opposition. He cannot get the policy right. He does not know how to fund it. He has never been fiscally responsible. All we want to know now is what taxes he is going to put up to fund Labor's policies as we move to the next election.2855415:01:0028554Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Do you recall telling the House on 4 June that the reason the government was providing a structural adjustment package of $4 million to the Wide Bay-Burnett region in Queensland was because it was `a very needy area' which was `suffering from very high levels of unemployment'? Minister, are you aware that the small area labour market statistics produced by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business released recently show that the two districts which make up the Wide Bay-Burnett region, Maryborough and Hervey Bay, have unemployment rates of 13.5 per cent and 18.7 per cent respectively, whilst Morwell and Moe—10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Order! The member for McMillan will get to his question.84HMr ZAHRA—two districts in the Latrobe Valley in my electorate, have unemployment rates of 17.7 per cent and 16.6 per cent?10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—The member for McMillan will resume his seat. I call the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Deputy Prime Minister.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Acting Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On what basis did you require the member to resume his seat before he concluded his question? Under which standing order and on what basis? Why was it anything other than a quintessential local member question to a minister about concerns in his constituency, and why should he or any other member be denied the right to ask it? 10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will be well aware that questions are required by the standing orders to be succinct. The member for McMillan went on for far too long. In my judgment, I believed he had reached the end of his question.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Which is the standing order that requires questions to be succinct? Will you quote it?10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—No, I will not. The House of Representatives Practice does.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Because there is not one.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Does the Manager of Opposition Business have another point of order?5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Given that there is no standing order that requires questions to be succinct, on what basis did you rule out this perfectly legitimate and not unusually long question, and why did you not allow this member to represent his constituents in a question to this pork-barrelling Deputy Prime Minister?10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I believe that the member for McMillan went on for far too long. I might say that House of Representatives Practice says that, while short introductions are tolerated, as a general rule the use of prefaces is to be avoided. I believed—84HZahra, Christian, MPMr Zahra—This is disgraceful.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I warn the member for McMillan. I am prepared, in the interests of fairness, to allow the member for McMillan to say a little more to bring his question to a point.84HMr ZAHRA—Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. Minister, if your criterion for providing needy regions with structural adjustment grants is high unemployment, when will the struggling families in the Latrobe Valley be getting their $4 million?28555Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I note that, in his own figures, he reflected quite accurately that unemployment levels in that region are still very unsatisfactorily high. They were about 19 per cent when we came to government. They are about 14 per cent now. That is not to deny that other regions of the country face some high levels of unemployment, but I do not think anyone could deny that the structural problems in that area are quite deep and severe. If you look at the ABS data on the lowest household incomes in the nation, you will find that they are in that electorate and the surrounding regions. There is a very plain and obvious need to seek to engender some new investment, some new business prospects, in that region. Councils there are actively trying to help themselves with proposals and ideas which need taking forward. We are seeking to establish whether or not this sort of process can help, and we make no apologies whatsoever for doing that.The only other comment that I would make is that, of course, a good state government would help. From what we read in the newspapers, we thought the Victorian government was managing to preside over the most successful economy in the nation. When it comes to Queensland, just one simple thing: a decent regional forests agreement might have helped a great deal in that area. But, as usual, you had an attitude up there that just said, `We don't give a damn about jobs in rural and regional areas.' Investment in that industry has just been thrown to the winds by the state government.2855515:07:0028555Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister inform the House of how the education sector, including Charles Sturt University in Wagga Wagga, contributes to Australia's export performance. Is the minister aware of the existence of any plans that would jeopardise this?28555Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for Riverina for her question and also for her support of that fine tertiary institution in her electorate that does participate in what has become a great Australian export industry, the knowledge based education system within Australia. Last year this country exported $30 billion worth of knowledge based exports, a 48 per cent increase over the last five years. We have seen a significant increase, in the term of our period in office, in the level of knowledge based exports going out of Australia as part of the overall mix of export earnings for Australia. The majority, the top 10 markets for education exports out of Australia, are within our region of East Asia, and so that is especially good, given the economic circumstances within the region in recent years. Education, the member will be interested to note, has become Australia's seventh biggest export. It is bigger than wool, wheat or meat in terms of the earnings that it brings into this country from offshore. They are earnings that sustain jobs not just in the metropolitan areas of Australia but also in the regional centres across Australia, such as in the institutions in the member's electorate and, indeed, Mr Acting Speaker, in your own electorate. It is interesting to note that in 1991, when the Leader of the Opposition was the education minister, the figure that we earned from education exports was $995 million. Under our government, that figure has multiplied fourfold, and last year we earned $4 billion from Australia's education exports.Obviously that is attributable to sound management of the economy in Australia, particularly with the abolition of a lot of the tax burden on Australia's exports but also, as the minister for education outlined, with the significant investments we have made in the world-class education system that we have in Australia, where we already have a knowledge nation. The majority of Australians recognise that, and certainly a lot of people overseas who are buying education services from Australia acknowledge that. It is a wonder that the Labor Party has not worked it out yet, given its time in opposition. That has all been achieved at a time when we have been reducing the level of indebtedness of the Commonwealth. We inherited a $96 billion debt from the Labor Party when we took office. By the end of this fiscal year, we will have reduced that by having paid off $60 billion worth of Labor's debt. That frees up a significant amount of capital that can be invested in the future of this country.What are the opposition proposing to do? How are they proposing to fund their so-called knowledge nation? We heard today out of the Sydney Morning Herald that the member for Fremantle says it is going to be funded by education bonds and more borrowings. We and the Australian people have spent the past five years getting rid of Labor's debt, and they are flagging that as soon as they get back into office they are going to start running up that debt again—and running it up at a rapid rate. The Treasurer read a quote from the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, and I will read a couple of others. Further on, that article says:Dr Lawrence believes they would get a good response from financial markets because bonds are drying up as the government retires debt.Well, that is absolutely right: we are retiring debt. We are getting rid of the debt that the Labor Party burdened all Australians with. The Australian Labor Party are proposing all these policies, and we now know how they are going to be funded: by raising more debt from the public sector. This is the Labor Party that gave us some of the policies of the past—and we now know that the Leader of the Opposition is living in a time warp. They gave us policies like Investing in the Nation, Creative Nation, Shaping the Nation and Our Nation—and we all remember Working Nation. But now we know—the member for Fremantle has told us—what they are going to deliver to us. They are going to deliver us another debt ridden nation.2855615:13:0028556Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—My question without notice is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that over $98,000 in superannuation belonging to my constituent Mrs Margaret Lawrence and the superannuation belonging to other former employees of the failed National Textiles was frozen by APRA, following the collapse of Commercial Nominees earlier this year? Are you further aware that the National Textiles employees have been advised by the administrator that their money has not been lost but that they will not be able to access it until at least 30 November this year? Prime Minister, what action will you take to allow these workers to get access to their money?28556Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am not specifically aware of the details of that. If the honourable member wants to send all the details to me I will have a look at it straightaway and, if there is anything that reasonably and properly lies within the capacity of the federal government in the circumstances to accelerate the payment of the money to which those men and women may be entitled, I will be very happy to look at it. I frankly do not know all the details of it and I will not try to pretend, without checking, that I do. I take the opportunity of pointing out to the honourable member that the workers of that company and of a number of other companies have had support from the government under its entitlements scheme. In that particular case, the payments made by the Commonwealth government were matched by payments from the state government. To my knowledge, it is the only case in Australia where that has occurred. It would be a very good idea as well— ET4Bevis, Arch, MPUU5Horne, Bob, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—If the member for Brisbane and the member for Paterson are interested in the welfare of the workers, they will—UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Oh—ZD4Mr HOWARD—I would remind the member for Paterson—UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Mr Acting Speaker, I ask that that be withdrawn. I asked this question out of the interest—10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Nothing unparliamentary has been said. The Prime Minister has the call. ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have indicated to the member for Paterson that I will investigate it, but I was making the wholly legitimate point that one of the problems that workers have in Australia when companies get into difficulties and there is not enough money available to meet their entitlements is that the federal government has a scheme which funds up to 50 per cent of those entitlements but that that scheme is not matched by state governments. I invite the member for Paterson, if he is genuinely interested in this issue, and I would invite the member for Brisbane, if he is genuinely interested in this issue, to actually get on to Peter Beattie and Bob Carr, as I continue to get on to John Olsen and others, to encourage them to match our scheme. We are the only government in Australia that has ever introduced a scheme. That scheme would be of double benefit to the workers of Australia if it were matched by state governments, both Liberal and Labor.As to the particulars of that employee, I will make some inquiries and, if there is anything that reasonably can be done, I will do it. I will have to check all the details before I can say anything further.2855715:16:0028557Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the significance for the bilateral relationship of the first visit to Australia by an Indonesian head of state in 27 years? In particular, what are the outcomes of the official talks with President Wahid and his delegation today?28557Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Forde for her question and recognise the interest she has shown in President Wahid's visit and indeed in Australia's standing in the region and the world. It goes without saying that President Wahid's visit was indeed a historic visit. As the honourable member points out, this is the first visit by an Indonesian President to Australia since 1975 and the first to our national capital since 1972.I am happy to tell the House that the government was very struck by the warmth and the success of the meetings that the Prime Minister and other ministers had with the Indonesian President and with our counterparts. We were able to discuss a number of issues which are of particular interest to us. One was our bilateral trade relationship, and I know the Minister for Trade himself had a good deal to say about how successful that has been in recent times. We were able to discuss investment issues and, interestingly, the fact that Indonesian students are now the largest group of foreign students studying here in Australia. There was excellent cooperation on the issue of dealing with people-smuggling. We did have some discussions with President Wahid about the proposal for a west Pacific forum. It has been agreed that at the foreign minister level we will move towards a dialogue between neighbouring countries, being Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, East Timor, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines and Brunei. It is our view that this is a very good way of helping Australia, Indonesia and other countries in the region to work together to create an appropriate environment in our neighbourhood and to ensure that it is as stable and secure as we would like it to be. There was also some discussion with our Indonesian counterparts about the issue of human rights abuses before and after the East Timor ballot in 1999. We expressed our view that we wanted those involved in those abuses to be brought to justice. Both the foreign minister and the President have made it clear that they are still committed to establishing ad hoc tribunals to deal with those involved in these abuses both before and after the ballot in 1999. We look forward to the ad hoc tribunals being established and the Indonesian government moving ahead with that process. The Indonesian side also sought further assistance from Australia to help with dealing with the problem of refugees in west Timor. We have already provided substantial assistance to refugees in west Timor— somewhere in the vicinity of $6.8 million— but we did make it clear to the Indonesians that we were very happy to continue to support them in dealing with those refugees. There are still problems that have to be sorted out. We and other members of the international community would be willing to provide some assistance for those who want to be relocated in other parts of Indonesia, and also, naturally enough, for those who wish to be relocated back to East Timor, whence they came. Overall, this visit was a great moment in Australian diplomacy. It has put the relationship with Indonesia on the terms that we want that relationship to be: a natural relationship between two partners, two friends, two neighbours, and also a relationship based on mutual respect. That is a very important principle. You often hear the Prime Minister and me talking about the need for mutual respect in our relationship with Indonesia. Both we and the Indonesians have been able to demonstrate that commitment to that principle very strongly over the last couple of days. 2855815:21:0028558Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall saying yesterday in this House that `through the use of information technology, as distinct from the manufacture of those things that contribute to it, this country has been able to boost its economic performance and to lift its productivity'? Is it true that your own Science, Engineering and Innovation Council recently provided you with a report dealing with this issue, in which it found:... while Australia has been a good user of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) it has not captured the major benefits of being a producer of ICT goods and services. This is demonstrated in Australia's export and patent performance. Is it also true that your council found:... Government efforts to stimulate the development of new ICT intellectual property have been inadequate, and have led to a focus on using ICT rather than creating an environment for ICT innovation.Prime Minister, who is right—you or your own council?28558Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The reality is that we are both right. Of course, the Prime Minister's science council made quite a number of recommendations in this area. That is, of course, what led to Backing Australia's Ability. I am puzzled that the Leader of the Opposition should see something strange about a government responding to the recommendations of an expert committee. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that the plan that was released by me on behalf of the government, the $2.9 billion investment in Australia's innovation and technology future, represents the largest investment by any government in the scientific future of this country in the last two decades at the very least.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition professes to be interested in further strengthening the intellectual and scientific base of this country. I point out to the honourable gentleman that this plan has significantly committed funds to a process of bolstering Australia's capacity to pioneer technologies. For example, we have put in a pre-seed venture capital fund of $78 million; we have doubled the competitive research grants—that is, $736 million; we have provided additional funding for commercialising technology—$40 million; and we have increased funding for CRCs—an additional $227 million. The difference between the government and the Labor Party on this issue is that we have done something; the Labor Party have merely talked. The other difference between the government and the Labor Party is that we do not talk down the intellectual base of this nation. The reality is that this country has been a superb user of information technology and, as a result of its superb use of information technology, we have lifted our productivity as a country quite dramatically, and particularly over the last five years. We are a nation which is second only to the United States in the utilisation of information technology in many areas. We are a nation so far from the `dumbed down' description that the Leader of the Opposition would seek to apply to us. We are a nation that is increasingly regarded with great and growing respect around the world as not only a highly intelligent nation but one that is in the very forefront of those that can use information technology.I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that we have put down a plan in this area. We have costed it, we have allocated budget funds, and we await with great interest the release of the alternative from the Australian Labor Party. When that alternative is released, we will go through it very carefully and we will find out how many things in our plan they have knocked out, what they have done with the money that they have taken from knocking those plans out, and whether they are going to spend that money on some kind of superior pursuit. The mail that I have, and the mail that the government have at the moment indicates that, right at the moment, Barry Jones's report is being rewritten in the Leader of the Opposition's office. They are doing a Latham on Barry Jones. I forget the name of the—K26Latham, Mark, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes, they are, Mark. They are doing it again. They did it to you, and that is why you resigned, and apparently they are going to do the same thing to this report. We await that with great interest. We have been sort of half-promised that we would get a policy in the next few weeks, but then I read another newspaper article and I read that all that is going to happen is that they are going to release the Barry Jones report.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Oh yes, we are very worried about this! Having read the Leader of the Opposition's speech to the Sydney Institute, I can say, `Oh you to be so lucky,' because not only did the Leader of the Opposition offer no new alternatives, no new policy, but also he got all of his facts wrong. This thing is meant to be the piece de resistance of the Leader of the Opposition. This was the big one that was going to blow us out of the water. This was the secret Beazley weapon. This was the motser that he was going to have on us between now and the election. The reality is that we released the plan in January, we have committed $3 billion, and it has been widely applauded by the education and scientific community. The Labor Party, on the very best interpretation, are now into the business of catch-up, but, after the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition, I think they are also into the business of falling behind. We await with great interest and enthusiasm the release of the latest discussion paper on education from the Leader of the Opposition's office.2855915:27:0028559Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister inform the House of the success of his visit to Indonesia earlier this year and of the overall state of our trading relationship with Indonesia?28559Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for Forrest for his question. Obviously of interest to the member for Forrest is the live cattle trade that we are doing with Indonesia, which is of significant importance in the overall make-up of our export effort and trading relationship with Indonesia. Of course, this week marks a historic moment in the relationship between our two countries with the visit today by President Wahid to Canberra—the first by an Indonesian President for some 29 years. The question was about the investment delegation that I took to Jakarta in February this year. That followed a request by the Indonesians in the ministerial forum last year. In that delegation that I led we had 16 Australian companies represented by senior officers of those companies. Those companies represented $6 billion worth of Australian investment in Indonesia. Obviously they were taking a great deal of interest in what opportunities presented themselves, and the Indonesian side were looking for further investment in Indonesia while we were there. During the visit these companies signed deals and made commitments for a further $550 million worth of investment by Australian companies in Indonesia. Such is the confidence in the relationship between our two countries. Notwithstanding the sensitive issues that have been dealt with in recent years, the business, trade and investment relationship has continued to grow and flourish during that time and, of course, at the moment is in a very healthy state. That manifested itself with the commitment of those Australian companies during that visit in February.It is interesting to note that the Indonesian market is worth some $3.74 billion to Australian exporters of merchandise and that two-way trade is worth over $7 billion, making Indonesia Australia's 10th largest export destination. Not only is it our closest neighbour but it is also a very significant trading partner. Our exports are going from strength to strength, and we have been encouraging that in recent years. Australia's exports to Indonesia last year grew at 26 per cent, with a significant contribution being made by the cotton industry. Indonesia buys 28 per cent of Australia's cotton exports. Of interest to the member for Forrest: Indonesia is Australia's largest destination for live cattle exports, and that has been further enhanced by discussions here this morning between the Indonesian minister for agriculture and our own minister for agriculture. Indonesia is our second largest destination for wheat, taking 13 per cent of Australia's wheat exports last year. The business relationship between the two countries is also on a very sound footing, with some 400 Australian companies having a presence in Indonesia.One of the most important aspects of the trading and business relationship between Australia and Indonesia is the education sector. Indonesia is our most valuable export market for education. I will say that again: it is our most valuable export market for education, contributing almost half a billion dollars to the Australian economy and educating almost 18,000 Indonesian students. It has grown fourfold since the Leader of the Opposition was the minister for education in 1991. Indonesia recognises the importance of Australia's knowledge based industries. It recognises the importance and the standards of the education system in Australia. If 18,000 Indonesian students in Australia are using our educational services and recognise the very solid and world-class education system we have in this knowledge based country, why cannot the Labor Party?2856015:32:0028560Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall in question time last week citing statistics that show Australia is a high consumer of IT goods and services and claiming that these statistics demonstrated Australia's performance as a new economy? Prime Minister, are you also aware that your own Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts said earlier this year:You need to go beyond simply being an early adopter and prolific user of technology ... Australia must become a producer of technology.Prime Minister, is your own minister wrong, and, if so, why?28560Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Once again, we are both right. Having said that we are both right, I can say to the honourable member for Fremantle: your two statements—that you are going to have an education bond and spend the money on education and that that will add to national savings—are not both right. Those two statements are mutually exclusive. The challenge ahead of this country is to be a country that is capable not only of using technology and adapting rapidly but also of generating new ideas and commercialising them very effectively and very rapidly. This country historically has been very good at generating new ideas. In fact, we have always generated new ideas well above our population. Going right back to the 19th century there is a long and very proud record of Australia being a remarkably inventive country. We are also a nation that has punched well above its weight in areas like medical science. With, I hope, the support of both sides of the House, can I remark how proud Australia is to see a situation where people are brought to this country for pioneering operations, whereas perhaps generations ago Australians would have gone to other nations for pioneering operations. I am referring of course to that remarkable medical procedure that was carried out by those very gifted surgeons in Melbourne on that young English boy, and we wish him a very speedy recovery. We record our admiration for the wonderful skill of those wonderful Australian surgeons.We need to be good users and adapters, and we also need to be good generators of ideas. We need to be able to transfer ideas into commercial value, and that is what Backing Australia's Ability is all about. I simply say to the member for Fremantle: do not put your faith in education bonds; they will drive you into debt. Do not put your faith in education bonds; put your faith and your support behind Backing Australia's Ability, because Backing Australia's Ability identifies the challenges for Australia in the future and responds with appropriate resources.2856115:35:0028561Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister inform the House of the link between the defence capability plan released today and the defence white paper? Minister, what threats exist to the capability plan?28561Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—I thank the member for Makin for her question. One of the reasons that she is interested in defence is that she did her nurses training in the Royal Australian Navy. But she and others on this side are also interested in defence because we are very worried that the Labor Party, if it is ever elected, intends to target defence for expenditure cuts. The defence white paper set out the best plan Defence has had for decades. The budget backed that up with the first tranche of money to make it a reality. I am pleased to advise the House that I have today released the defence capability plan, which sets out in great detail, project by project, the acquisitions which the Commonwealth will be pursuing in the years ahead.I note a lot of comments about so-called Knowledge Nation and, in particular, the comments of the frontbencher on the other side who is going off with her education bonds to fund some vague set of promises that are about to be revealed. Whilst the Labor Party is talking about jacking up debt, the fact is that within the defence capability program, just in information capability alone, this government is not talking about acquiring capability; we will be spending $8 billion, which is paid for, in the defence of the country and building up Australia's industrial base in this crucial area. This will of course be news to the opposition. Only last week the shadow minister put out a press release saying:The government wants to have this Global Hawk, but they don't have the money for it.Not only do we have the money for it provided in the white paper—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPWI4Mr REITH—To your great disappointment, you will be interested to hear that in this defence capability plan we have the specifics of the Global Hawk, which the money was provided for in the White Paper. Don't you understand? Don't they understand, Mr Acting Speaker? The fact is when we say we are going to do something, we have got the money to make it a reality, it is funded, provided for, without the income tax increases which are inevitable if you look at the unfunded proposals on the other side. In conclusion, in this defence capability plan we have a plan for the decade ahead. On the other side, what do we have? Well, we do not have this. We have a list of unfunded promises: free submarines, a free Anzac battalion, a free coastguard, free specialised coastguard vessels, a free bombing range and a free Jervis Bay catamaran. I like the quote from the member for Melbourne, who has picked up some Conroy candour, as one of my colleagues said earlier today. This is what he told workers online:My role within the Opposition has been to try to prevent us from making promises that are not funded. It is quite easy to get carried away with particular proposals without having them properly assessed.This opposition is a joke.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Acting Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Documents2856215:39:0028562Reith, 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.Personal Explanations2856215:39:0028562Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Acting Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Yes.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Please proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Two misrepresentations, in fact. The first was the suggestion by the Prime Minister, in answer to one question, that currently in my office the paper by Barry Jones's committee was being rewritten. That is absolute rubbish. That is not happening.Secondly, the suggestion was made that I have some intention of introducing education bonds. We have none. We have found the hollow log. It is a contingency reserve.15:40:0028562Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Mr Acting Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Yes.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Please proceed.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—I claim to have been misrepresented yesterday by the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation in question time. Today I have had the opportunity of examining the Hansard. I have been misrepresented in the following 18 respects.The first is that I had issued press releases at different times congratulating carriers for an improved level of service. What the minister did not say was that I also said at the same time that there was still a long way to go to achieve adequate service levels. The next is that what I had said on yesterday's AM program about inadequate service levels and the Besley inquiry report was knowingly false. This is untrue and without foundation. What I said was neither false nor knowingly false. That what I had said on yesterday's AM program about inadequate service levels and the Australian Communications Authority was knowingly false.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. We had a series of propositions yesterday from the same member. It was generous to a fault of the Speaker to allow that to disintegrate into simply a debating session, and that should not be allowed under the guise of a personal explanation, which is obviously his intent. Did he say 18?XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—Yes.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Eighteen! This will be the all-time record. He ought to just table it. Do something like that.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I thank the Leader of the House. I was of course somewhat taken aback when the honourable member said he had been misrepresented on 18 separate occasions. It is the duty of the chair to allow members to make explanations. So far, the member, on the two or three that he has covered, has been very brief and succinct. I will be listening very carefully. 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. That what I had said on yesterday's AM program about inadequate service levels in the Australian Communications Authority was knowingly false. This untrue and without foundation. What I said was neither false nor knowingly false. That I had conned my way onto AM. This is not true. My office was approached with a request for an interview. That I had slimed my way into the media consciousness. This is not true. What the media report is a matter for them. That I verbal people left, right and centre. This is untrue, unsubstantiated and without foundation. That in March this year by way of press release—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Point of order, Mr Acting Speaker: if to say that you are verballed provides an opportunity for a debate under the guise of a personal explanation, we would have every member of the House up here for 10 misrepresentations most days a week. Any member is entitled to be heard, but this just makes a mockery of the whole process.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I thank the Leader of the House. I encourage the member for Perth to be very brief in naming the remainder of his points.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—That in March this year by way of press release, I had said:That is why the Prime Minister could say last week that he and the government regard the full privatisation as a certainty—10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Where were you misrepresented? You have to show that.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—and that there was no basis which could justify this claim. That is not true. That statement was based on a 1 March answer in question time by the Prime Minister.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Right. Tell us it is not true. You do not have to debate it. Next one.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—That I doctored transcripts. This defamation is not substantiated and is untrue.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Good. Next.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—I like this approach. That I falsified transcripts. This defamation is not substantiated and is untrue. That I had a long history of complete misrepresentations. This is untrue, unsubstantiated and without foundation. That I told lies about the ABC. This is untrue, unsubstantiated and without foundation. That I told lies about the Besley inquiry report. This is untrue, unsubstantiated and without foundation. That I told lies about the GST. This is untrue, unsubstantiated and without foundation. That I told lies about Telstra service levels. This is untrue, unsubstantiated and without foundation.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Order! How many more to go, member for Perth?5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—That I told lies about Telstra pricing. This is untrue, unsubstantiated and without foundation. That I told lies about mobile phone towers. This is untrue, unsubstantiated and without foundation. That I told lies about an unspecified list that, to quote the minister, `goes on and on'. This is untrue, unsubstantiated and without foundation. That lies are being told by the opposition, including me, about telecommunications services. This is untrue, unsubstantiated and without foundation. Mr Acting Speaker, they will say anything to avoid the fact they want to flog off all of Telstra.Matters of Public Importance285632856310000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Dobell proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The damage done by the Howard Government to Australia's future as a Knowledge Nation. 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—15:45:0028563Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Today I want to begin by explaining what making Australia a knowledge nation means. For a typical Australian, it means ensuring that existing workers' jobs are more secure, more satisfying and better paid. Knowledge Nation for the typical Australian family means an expansion in the industries, companies and opportunities that offer Australia the greatest promise in years to come—and I will talk more about how we can work to enhance those opportunities. Knowledge Nation means giving kids better access to quality early childhood education at Australian preschools, kindergartens and child-care centres in every state and territory. It means making sure that a typical Australian family's kids get a decent education at whatever school their family chooses to send them. Knowledge Nation means that, for the typical Australian family, we are working to improve the quality of all of our schools. It means providing more apprenticeships and genuine training opportunities— not the phantom jobs or the bogus training that this government has specialised in to produce bodgie figures about its training and employment policies. Knowledge Nation means giving parents and middle-aged workers greater access to a quality national training system so that they are able to have better career paths during their working lives, develop new skills and have new careers in life or make their existing employment more secure. It is also about working with the adult and community education sector to ensure throughout someone's life, working or retired, people still have access to learning opportunities. It means giving more students from ordinary families the chance to study at university and to reach their full potential, and not be denied access to university by the bottom drawer plan of this Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs to deregulate university fees and replace HECS with a real interest rate loan scheme, which we know he will do if this government is re-elected and he gets another chance. Knowledge Nation means increasing the number of research training places at universities, especially in rural universities and in the rural campuses of metropolitan universities. It is about lifting national investment in research and development. It is about boosting the pure and applied research that should be taking place in our universities and in companies across the country. It is about making sure that the best of our new ideas and the best of our inventions are implemented and commercially developed. It is about making sure that the best of those new ideas and the best of our new inventions work to improve our society, generate new jobs and new industries and expand export income so that we can address the looming deficit in intellectual property payments. Our country is paying an increasing sum of money to other countries to use other peoples' ideas and inventions in new manufacturing technology, new computer software and new medical diagnostic tests. We in Australia must ensure that we are developing our own ideas, our own inventions, our own new manufacturing processes, our own ways to better process the minerals that we extract from the ground and our own computer software so that Australia is earning money from other countries when we sell them our intellectual property and allow them to use the ideas that we have developed here at home. It will only be by making sure that we receive royalty payments and licence fees that we can ensure we do not have an exploding deficit in intellectual property payments in future years.I would like to give you a few simple examples, Mr Acting Speaker. In the past, we have focused on trying to expand our exports of coal or agricultural produce. Knowledge Nation means that we not only have to work at exporting more coal but also have to develop new ways of burning coal—new computer software so that we can manage not only the furnaces in Australian power stations but the furnaces in other countries' power stations, so that we can burn the coal more efficiently and also ensure that our country is getting paid to use the ideas that are trapped in those furnace supervisory systems. In my own electorate of Dobell there is a company that produces specialist software that controls the furnace control systems and safety systems for power stations and power units, even on oil production platforms. They are able to earn Australia export dollars by selling that computer software to other countries. It is great to see that, in many parts of our country, we have companies that are working hard to earn Australia dollars in this way. However, no matter how hard those people are working, we have a government at the top of our national leadership that is satisfied with where we are, that does not believe, like the Labor Party, that Australia can do better and that the national government can work with Australian companies and researchers to do better than we are today. Let us look at a few statistics. The recently released Education at a glance: 2001 produced by the OECD, showed that Australia's public investment in education, at 4.34 per cent of gross domestic product, was well below the OECD average of five per cent. If you look at not just public investment but the total investment in education, Education at a glance showed that Australia was at 5.46 per cent and well below the OECD average of 5.66 per cent.Let me remind the Prime Minister and the minister for education that the OECD average currently includes countries like Mexico, Poland, Turkey and Hungary, countries which we should not be benchmarking ourselves against. We should be benchmarking ourselves against the developed countries that are doing the best around the world. We should be ensuring that we provide national leadership to be up there with the best of these countries.The OECD table shows that Australia had the third lowest growth in university enrolments in the OECD. It shows that we were one of only five OECD countries that actually cut expenditure on universities, by five per cent, between 1995 and 1998. This minister's own figures showed that we had a decline in the number of Australian students at universities. It actually fell by 3,000 last year. How can we expect to make Australia a knowledge nation when we have actually got a decline in the number of Australians who studied at university last year?The figures produced by this minister's own department also show that the government has deliberately abolished more than 3,000 research training places at universities, particularly in regional Australia. Commonwealth funding to universities has been massively cut since this government was elected. If the government had kept direct Commonwealth investment in universities at 1996 levels there would have been an extra $3 billion invested in universities by this government.I am sure my colleagues behind me have seen this graph before. It is a graph that we have displayed in the House on several occasions. This is an important graph because it demonstrates that this minister has misled the House on many occasions in his claims that the government has not cut funding to universities.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr Kemp—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. If a claim is going to be made that someone has misled the House, there should be a substantive motion moved. There has been no substantive motion in this case.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I listened carefully to the words chosen by the member for Dobell, and they were within the practices of the House. He did not indicate anything that needed to be—4G4Downer, Alexander, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I do not think I need the assistance of the Minister for Foreign Affairs at this stage. The member for Dobell's words were well within the guidelines that have been set down by previous speakers.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. I encourage the minister to read the standing orders. I did not say that the minister deliberately misled the House; I said that he misled the House. He misled the House because on many occasions he has incorrectly claimed that the government has not cut funding to universities. This graph from the minister's own report on tertiary education makes it clear that as the government has doubled HECS payments—as the charges paid by students have basically doubled since 1996—the Commonwealth's own direct investment in universities has fallen.This minister adds together the Commonwealth's own direct investment and the higher payment by the students and together claims that there is a stable level of funding going to universities. The minister was so embarrassed by the fact that week after week we have been raising this in the House that he had this table redone. If you look at the latest version of his department's table, you will see that the HECS payments and the government's direct investment have been combined, to deliberately mislead any person who seeks to question the information that is brought before the House. The point I make is that this minister has misled the House in seeking to claim that the government has not cut funding to universities. The other point to make is that the minister has misled not only the House but also many Australians with his claims about what has been happening to staff-student ratios around the country. The Chifley report, which the Labor Party commissioned from a number of very highly esteemed Australian academics, found that there had been a rapid increase in university staff-student ratios, rising to 17.8 students per staff member, on average, in 1999. This is based on figures produced by this minister's own department. In fact, the minister's own leaked cabinet submission from October 1999 had the following statement:Higher student:staff ratios—this is David Kemp, minister for education—less frequent lecture and tutorial contact, the persistence of outdated technology and gaps in key areas of professional preparation ... are fuelling a perception of declining quality.So the minister admits in private what he denies in public: that there has been an increase in student-staff ratio. Yet, having admitted this in private, the minister put out a press release last week claiming that Australia's student-staff ratio was down to 11.8 students per teacher. He claimed:Student to teacher ratios for Australia ... are significantly lower in the case of university education.The minister said in his own press release:At the university level, there are 11.8 students per teacher compared to the OECD's 16.2.So the minister puts out a press release that completely misleads the Australian people. I challenge the minister to repeat in the House here today that misleading statement that is contained in his press release, because we know that the minister's own figures prove that he is wrong. In fact, we have learned over time that you cannot believe anything that this minister says. You cannot believe the bodgie figures he produces and the bodgie statements that he makes.The Prime Minister at question time here today claimed that the innovation statement provides some massive boost to the nation's research and development effort. Here is another graph that I am sure my colleagues have seen before, produced by the group of eight, that demonstrates that as a percentage of national income there was an increase in investment in R&D until 1996 and then a steady decline. The impact of the innovation statement is this pimple down the bottom of the graph that simply alters the slope of the declining investment as a percentage of national income into these areas.We in the opposition offer the country an alternative to this path that the government has chosen. We believe that you do have to increase national investment in education, training and research. Let me quickly run through the 10 positive policy alternatives that Labor has already announced in education. We have committed to redirect the $105 million that this minister is directing to the wealthy category 1 schools. We will use that money to fund a massive increase in capital works in public schools; to fund 1,000 per year new teachers scholarships that will forgive the HECS debts for the best of our year 12 students, to encourage them to become teachers; and to fund 10,000 teacher professional development reskilling packages over the next three years.Labor's positive alternative policies also include establishing several dozen education priority zones across the country to ensure that students in the poorest parts of our country have the extra resources to ensure that their learning outcomes can be improved. We are going to fund the Learning Gateway to ensure that we are investing in the highest quality Australian made content and we will abolish the enrolment benchmark adjustment. We will establish the University of Australia Online to make Australia a world leader in online education and have 100,000 Australians studying online as undergraduate students by 2010. We will also double the number of research fellowships and improve communication links at regional universities as well as providing more research training places there. It is a simple choice between a government that has massively cut our national investment in education, training and research or the Labor Party's 10 alternative constructive policies that will improve our schools, enhance research opportunities and ensure that existing workers get better access to training, to ensure that all Australians, whatever stage they are at in life, get the best possible opportunities to be part of that knowledge nation. (Time expired)16:00:0028567Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—This is a rather sad address from the member for Dobell, who continues to mislead the parliament in virtually everything that he says. Australia of course has an outstanding record in investing in education, training, and research and development. This government has lifted expenditure on public schooling in Australia by some 42 per cent over the last five years; yet the member for Dobell misleads the House when he gets up and says that this government has cut spending on education.This government has increased investment in vocational education and training. In the last five years we have doubled the number of apprenticeship opportunities in this country so that they now stand at something over 300,000. The member for Dobell misleads the House when he gets up and says that the government has cut support for vocational education and training. The revenues of Australian universities stand this year at some $9.5 billion, almost $1 billion more than they were when the Labor Party was in office before we came to office in 1996. The member for Dobell misleads the House in saying that we have cut funding for education. Of course, the Prime Minister announced in January this year the government's innovation package, Backing Australia's Ability, which invests an additional $3 billion in innovation in Australia. The vast bulk of that expenditure will be going into research in universities, with a doubling of competitive research grants, and over $700 million will be going into building up the nation's major research infrastructure facilities, including the major facilities.So this government has an outstanding record of investing in education and in research and the generation of ideas. Perhaps the single most remarkable feature of Backing Australia's Ability is that it was an integrated package which cut through a number of portfolios—education, communications, industry and other portfolios relevant to Australia's future, such as the immigration portfolio. We heard in question time from the Minister for Defence about the $8 billion that will be invested in information technology in the defence area.The opposition education spokesman who delivered this speech, the member for Dobell, may or may not be familiar with what is in the Knowledge Nation package because, as we know, he was not appointed by the Leader of the Opposition to the knowledge nation committee. In fact, education was not seen as part of Knowledge Nation at an earlier stage. The peculiar facial expression that the member for Dobell puts on acknowledges, I suppose, that that is the case. Now we have had the member for Dobell coming into the chamber and suggesting that he is really part of knowledge nation after all, even though the Leader of the Opposition excluded him from the committee.As we know, there is complete chaos on the other side in relation to Knowledge Nation at the present time. It is difficult for the member for Dobell—one has to have a little bit of sympathy for him—because he is giving a speech on something that does not yet exist, that has not yet been announced, but we have got a few hints of it from the press. We have seen selected journalists, shall we call them, such as Paul Kelly, scaling down public expectations about what Knowledge Nation will deliver. You can imagine the background briefings that have gone on there. Paul Kelly informed us several weeks ago that Knowledge Nation is really not a plan for the next three years; it is a vision for the next 10 years. So it will be several elections out, I suppose, before we know whether or not Knowledge Nation has delivered anything to Australia. We have been told by this selected journalist that it is just empty rhetoric. Barry Jones, to his credit of course, apparently does not accept that, according to another selected journalist, Glenn Milne. He was apparently briefed by Barry Jones, the former President of the Australian Labor Party, and wrote an article headed `Pruning kills off sapling of knowledge: Beazley smothers Jones's policy baby'. The big difference, I suppose, is that the Leader of the Opposition has never had much interest in policy, particularly education policy. Education policy is the big black hole in the social policy suite of the Leader of the Opposition. There was the fiscal black hole, the $10 billion black hole, with which he left Australia when he was Minister for Finance and there was the education black hole with which he left Australia when he was Minister for Employment, Education and Training. That was a black hole in which 30 per cent of young Australians could not read or write properly. The Leader of the Opposition thought there was far too much interest in getting into university and that what we really needed was to cap university studies. When his infamous office turned its attention to education policy at the last federal election, the shadow minister for education actually felt compelled to resign because of the appalling character of the policy that was developed by the Leader of the Opposition's office. So Barry Jones, apparently, has been working behind the scenes to put `meat on the bones'. In the Australian on 14 May, Glenn Milne writes:Jones has been the driving force behind the move to put meat on the bones of Beazley's idea of a Knowledge Nation. He also believes that the policy, when complete, should be released to stimulate community discussion. Whether he wins that fight will depend again on whether the visceral caution of the Beazley office prevails.Milne says that, `until Jones ran into Beazley's office', things were going well. He continues:He dispatched a copy of the approximately 50-page proposed policy document to the relevant adviser to the Opposition leader.He goes on:It was returned to Jones, gutted and bland. Reduced to five pages of essentially motherhood statements such as, “Labor supports the public education system”. It was a world removed from the complex set of ideas that Jones and his committee had wanted to use to provoke debate within the electorate.This is a remarkably well briefed article and it runs rather counter to the personal explanation the Leader of the Opposition gave after question time, I thought. Milne goes on:Jones sent back a blistering email to the adviser who had wielded the knife on his original report, reinserting much of what had been cut. The result, as of last week—this article is dated 14 May—was a compromise document of about 15 pages, which Jones's supporters see as another example of Beazley's office dumbing down policy.That is what we knew about the state of Knowledge Nation on 14 May. We know a bit more now. We know that shadow ministers are still trying to get things into the policy. The shadow minister for industry, Carmen Lawrence, decided that she would like to get a new funding mechanism into the policy—education bonds that would use debt to fund the Knowledge Nation policy. Apparently the Leader of the Opposition has not been too happy with the alternative mechanisms for funding the policy. As Stephen Conroy said quite honestly—it was a perfectly honest statement—`We really have two options if we are going to be responsible: we have to cut funding for other programs or we have to put up taxes. They seem to be the two logical alternatives.' As we know, the Leader of the Opposition has already seized one of those alternatives in part with his decision to cut funding from boarding schools. He does not think, apparently, that rural and regional Australia has been through too much difficulty lately—they can afford to have boarding school fees put up. That is what he thinks of them—the usual arrogance and disregard for people in rural and regional Australia. He is going to take money out of boarding schools to fund Knowledge Nation. So the first thing we know about the funding of Knowledge Nation—indeed, the only definite thing we know—is that cuts to school funding are going to be made. This is great stuff. Then we have the member for Fremantle, Carmen Lawrence, who has a new bright idea: the third way to fund Knowledge Nation. That is to run the budget back into deficit, to get rid of the surplus and to issue education bonds at uncommercial rates—I do not know why anyone would take them up at uncommercial rates. She is going to try to get that into Knowledge Nation. Apparently that is something that was going on a week ago. A week ago, the front bench behind the Leader of the Opposition—this weak, policy lazy Leader the Opposition—was milling about still trying to stuff things into Knowledge Nation, which was still open. I mean, after all, what can you expect of them? They have had only five years to prepare it. They have had only five years to write Knowledge Nation. According to Michelle Grattan, it is due to be released next week. There are a whole seven days to go. There must be a chance to get the funding of it right and to put a new policy initiative into Knowledge Nation. What we have here is complete chaos on the Labor side. We have the pathetic example of the member for Dobell being arm-twisted by the Leader the Opposition to come in here today and deliver a speech in the MPI on a subject that the Leader of the Opposition was going to speak on last week. Apparently he has decided that this week it is different, that Knowledge Nation has suffered a little too much caning in the press and there is really nothing to tell anybody as yet, so he has strongarmed the member for Dobell to come in here and try to pretend that behind it all, behind the motherhood statements that Barry Jones is so incensed about, there is actually something called Knowledge Nation. Good luck to them. In seven days, I hope they can get something out. I suppose that finally a few pages will be issued. What we know at the moment is that we have not heard of any creative or important suggestions to improve education and research in this country. It is this government which has built up Australia's research effort and which has put down a plan to commercialise Australia's ideas and create jobs in new enterprises. All we still have is Kim Beazley's postage stamp plan. I cannot resist referring to it. This is Kim Beazley's `My plan for our country'. It is a little larger than a postage stamp, but that is all that is on the public record at the moment about Knowledge Nation. As we look down to the last item on the list, we have `(4) Building a Knowledge Nation: investing in the skills and knowledge of our people.' It is separate from education.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Read out the second one.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—That is why he left you off the committee. He did not need your help on the Knowledge Nation committee because education was not in it at that stage, but now that it is so empty they are putting a bit of education into Knowledge Nation. We have always had the view that education is integral to building up ideas and research in this country. We are the ones that believe in it. That is why we introduced the National Literacy and Numeracy Plan. When the Leader of the Opposition left office, 30 per cent of young Australians could not read or write properly. We have halved the rate of illiteracy in the last five years with the National Literacy and Numeracy Plan. When the Leader of the Opposition was a minister in the Labor government, the number of young people in apprenticeships and traineeships reached the lowest level for three decades. We have not heard a word yet about the contribution of the training sector to innovation. The business community in Australia would be appalled by that. When our innovation statement came out, it was hailed by bodies such as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which said:The government's commitment to developing skills in Australia is a critical part of Australia's future. Business wants an innovation framework that will allow business to grow, to promote economic growth and increase the living standards of all Australians.That is what a proper innovation statement is all about. The Business Council of Australia said:The BCA strongly endorses three significant budget initiatives and they are innovation, training and welfare reform. These are all investments in the long-term future of the country.When the government put an additional $230 million to create another 20,000 apprenticeships and another 100,000 training places in the new ANTA agreement only a month or so ago, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said: The ACCI members have urged the federal government to provide leadership in this important area and they have delivered.It is quite clear that the leadership in this area is coming from the government. Members may be interested to know that this is supported by the OECD's latest statistics on education and research. According to the OECD, Australia is in the top five nations in the world in the average number of years of education of the working age population. We are up there with Germany, Canada, Switzerland and the United States. Yet Labor goes around talking down Australia, saying not only that its economy has been devastated by the GST but that it is a dumb nation and simply cannot hack it in the world. Well, Australia can hold its head up proudly as one of the world's foremost countries in education, research and information technology. That is why the prosperity and jobs of Australians are best assured under the policies of this government and not the debt ridden policies of the Labor Party.16:16:0028570Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Last week and today we have witnessed the Prime Minister, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and a number of so-called `independent' journalists getting very excited about the same thing. Indeed, today even the Minister for Trade chimed in with his edifying contribution. What is this thing that is getting them so excited? What is lathering them up more than usual? What has the minister champing at the bit even more than usual? Is it the chance to throw up some statistics that confirm Australia is the knowledge nation amongst nations or indeed a leading knowledge nation? No, what has them lathered up and all excited is that there is a report that says Australia is only an average to below average knowledge nation.This is the conclusion of the OECD Education at a glance: 2001 reportcobbled together in a DETYA ministerial. This report is the one seized upon by the Prime Minister to deliver one of his few contributions to the knowledge nation debate in this parliament. And what did we get? We got a Prime Minister gleefully proclaiming that all is well in the kingdom of knowledge and education and that Australia was happy to be average. According to the Prime Minister and his minions, Kim Beazley is trying to talk Australia down as the knowledge nation. `We are average,' says the Prime Minister, and that is okay by him!How can he boast that we are average? He can triumphantly turn to the OECD report and trot out the averages. And the result? It will stop that nasty Kim Beazley and his mob in their tracks, expose Beazley's vision of creating a knowledge nation as talking down Australia and calm the government's own troops, who were becoming contaminated by doubt about Australia's real performance as a knowledge nation. The Prime Minister, the minister for education and supporters of their line are also overjoyed because, according to the DETYA ministerial, they were able to spike nasty Kim Beazley's reference point for his vision of the knowledge nation—namely, the so-called Chifley Research Centre report, Australia's Comparative Performance as a Knowledge Nation.So what have we got for all the excitement on the floor of the House last week and today? We have a Prime Minister actually talking about—or more accurately, referring to—for the first time Australia as a knowledge nation; a Prime Minister and Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs boasting that Australia is an average to below average knowledge nation in OECD terms; a claim that nasty Kim Beazley is talking Australia down as a knowledge nation; and some journalists—with no surprises about who they are, being named today as well—arriving at these same conclusions independently and at the same time—surprise, surprise! Let us look beyond this excitement, this lathering up, and see what facts we can dig up because, as the Prime Minister is quick to point out, when confronted with some challenging suggestions, we need to look beyond the rhetoric. What is this OECD report which is the corner stone of the Prime Minister's attack on nasty Kim Beazley? Education at a glance: 2001 provides important data on investment in education but it does not cover other important parts of a knowledge nation index such as investment in research and development and the state of the ICT industry. It is worth noting that in these two areas Australia's comparative OECD performance is worse than it is in education. So what exactly does the OECD report confirm and to what extent is it at odds with the analysis of comparative performance of Australia as a knowledge nation referred to by Kim Beazley? The first thing to point out is that the comparative performance report was not prepared by the Chifley Research Centre, as stated by the Prime Minister and his minions, but was developed by Professors Mark Considine, Peter Sheehan and Simon Marginson via the Monash University Centre for Research in International Education. So comparative performance was not the conspiratorial report implied by claiming it was developed by the Chifley Research Centre. The mud stuck only with a few journalists, it seems. There is a big difference between `commissioning' and `developing and conducting' a study, I would have thought. The comparative performance investigates a knowledge nation index derived from the OECD and aggregates GDP spending on R&D, public education and software.Incorporating rather than contradicting OECD data, comparative performance shows the following. In 1998, Australia invested only 6.15 per cent of GDP in knowledge compared to an OECD average of 8.33 per cent. While most other OECD countries have increased investment in knowledge, Australia has gone backwards. Australia is one of very few countries where investment in physical capital is increasing faster than investment in education, research and ICT—the sure sign of an old economy.So what does the OECD Education at A glance: 2001 have to say about Australia's comparative performance in education? What comparative data does it provide that so excited the Prime Minister to actually raise the issue of a knowledge nation in the parliament? The 2001 OECD report confirms that Australia has very poor participation in preschool education. Retention and participation among teenagers is slightly above the OECD average, but the proportion of the population that has finished school is below the OECD average. I remind members of the shadow minister for education's comment that the OECD averages also include countries such as Hungary, Poland, Mexico and the Czech Republic. In relation to tertiary education, Australia's participation remains clearly above the OECD average but the gap is closing. Data also suggests Australia's participation is increasing slower than elsewhere.On funding, the 2001 OECD report shows that total Australian expenditure on education is below the OECD average and that public expenditure is well below average. Preschool expenditure is especially low. Tertiary expenditure is above average but—and it should be noted—it has fallen since 1997 and is close to the OECD average. Because tertiary participation is still relatively high, above average is not enough. A new table shows that expenditure per tertiary student is well below the OECD average. The OECD cites student-staff ratios for Australian university education which are way below those provided by DETYA in its regular statistical collection on Australian higher education. The OECD data in this instance is wrong.Who wants to be average, because that is what the OECD data indicates? Who wants to join the Prime Minister, the minister for education and others on the other side, and triumph in being average? Kim Beazley does not, I do not, the young people of Australia and their families do not and industry does not. We cannot afford to be average. We have to demonstrate world's best practice as a nation. Unlike the Prime Minister, Kim Beazley, the shadow minister for education and members on this side of the House do not get excited about average performances in investing in knowledge. Who wants an average investment in the future when only the best will do? If the Prime Minister describes Kim Beazley's vision of creating a knowledge nation as talking Australia down, all I can say is: better this than the Prime Minister's head-in-the-sand approach, which is dumbing us down and running down the knowledge nation.In conclusion, I would like to summarise in general Education at a glance: 2001—the state of education in the nation. Australia's performance on education, which was once superior, is now at OECD average levels, and in some respects it is significantly below the OECD norm. That is not good enough. As I have mentioned earlier, it includes newer countries to the OECD, such as Hungary, Poland, Mexico and the Czech Republic. We must be well above average to excellent. On most knowledge nation indicators, Australia is well below the United States of America. Australia's comparative performance is deteriorating, especially in relation to tertiary expenditure and participation. The comparative position, according to the OECD data from the mid-1990s, has seen a turn sharply downwards. This government, this minister and this Prime Minister should be ashamed of the state of the nation of knowledge. I look forward to being part of a Beazley government which holds the knowledge nation at the very centre of its performance and of its being. 16:26:0028572Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—The matter before the House refers to Knowledge Nation—capital K, capital N—as a proper noun on the basis that this is some particular property of the Australian Labor Party, that this is a new innovation and that this is a discernible body of principles and detail which reflects a concrete policy position. That is the first difficulty we face on this side of the House in responding to it, because we move into a morass of boxing at shadows. In fact, there is so little detail, so little cartilage and so little flesh on the bones of what is really nothing more than a slogan.The member for Braddon has criticised our government for its alleged acceptance of mediocrity, focusing as he has on the OECD's report Education at a glance. That is setting up a straw man in the context of this debate, because it is never our purpose to accept or defend mediocrity. The criticism lodged at the Leader of the Opposition was in fact not made first by the Prime Minister or by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs but by one of the journalists in the press gallery here, Glenn Milne. It is not a partisan political statement; it is a simple observation by a journo who was prepared to do the most elementary research that any cadet journalist could have undertaken.The criticism being levelled at Kim Beazley is twofold. Firstly, in order to get some traction for this policy, he had to deliberately misrepresent Australia's position and performance, and that—in the words of Milne:He paints a picture of a country in terminal decline.Milne goes on to say:We all know politicians twist statistics to their own purposes. But if half of what Beazley says is true, we are headed for national calamity. The overwhelming impression left by the Labor leader is that comparable countries in the OECD are streaking away to a bright technological future, while here the lights are going out.To the member for Braddon, I say that it is not a case of this government defending mediocrity but it is a case of your leader deliberately badmouthing, slandering and talking down Australia's performance in order to gain some traction or to blow some air into this vast balloon which is yet to achieve lift-off. Secondly, when we actually examine the report that he was selectively quoting from, we find that Australia's performance in a number of areas—in the words of the OECD; not of the Prime Minister or the minister—compares well to other OECD countries. We find that 18 per cent of 25- to 64-year-olds have university level education compared to an OECD average of 14 per cent. We find that at university level there are 11.8 students per teacher compared to the OECD's average of 16.2 per cent.Kim Beazley argued that there had been some dramatic decline in spending on education in Australia since John Howard was elected as Prime Minister, but in fact the OECD figures show that Australian expenditure on educational institutions remained stable at 5.6 per cent of GDP between 1995 and 1998. I congratulate the minister on the fact that expenditure has increased considerably since then. I could go on. The report found that total Commonwealth expenditure on education is expected to grow by 17 per cent in real terms between 1995-96 and 2001-02, a much more rapid acceleration in growth than we found under the former government. But we do not have to look only at the OECD's findings: we have another excellent report from the National Office for the Information Economy—the Current state of play report which was released today. The report found that Australia consistently rated in the top 10 globally for its use of information and its development of the information economy. The report's highlights include that 50 per cent of all Australian adults used the Internet in the year to November 2000—a 61 per cent increase from November 1998. We found that 65 per cent of Australians aged 16 years and over had access to the Internet, placing Australia sixth of the 20 countries surveyed. We found the ABS projecting that over 50 per cent of households will be connected to the Internet by November 2001, and that 68 per cent of Australian households had a mobile phone—surpassed only by Hong Kong, with a mobile phone penetration of 85 per cent.Other international research has also rated Australia highly in terms of e-business readiness. The US based Economist Intelligence Unit ranked Australia second to the United States in terms of providing a conducive environment for the development of e-business opportunities. The EIU determined that Australia's regulatory regime, geared to e-business, was a critical factor in its second place ranking out of 60 countries included in the study. This government does not have to defend mediocrity. We find Australia coming second out of 60—second only to the United States—in its development of the information economy.The idea of Knowledge Nation is shared on both sides of the chamber. The point is that there is nothing particularly new or innovative about it. The pursuit of knowledge as being central to the human experience has been advocated by great thinkers throughout history. We could look at Moses, Socrates, Aristotle and Plato. Plato argued that reason and understanding were the two highest of the four faculties of the soul. Socrates, of course, commanded us to `know thyself'. More recently, Abraham Lincoln said that the doctrine of the classroom in one generation is the policy of government in the next. Alvin Toffler, the great futurist, spoke of the third wave, saying that we had experienced in history the agrarian revolution, followed in the 19th century by the industrial revolution and now, in our generation, the information revolution. Bill Gates, in his book The road ahead, reflecting on the importance of information, said that this third wave was heading towards us and that leaders had the choice of either getting on the front and surfing it to its conclusion or getting swamped by it.This is the challenge faced by this government and it is one that we have very readily taken up, as the reports of those international agencies well and truly certify. The difficulty that the Australian Labor Party faces today is in advocating knowledge and innovation within an entrenched culture which is reactionary. I do not want to use my language or that of any of my colleagues on this side of the House, but I want to look at what Labor Party members themselves have said. The member for Werriwa is a bright, shining illuminato in a fairly drab and grey intellectual landscape on the other side of the House. In October 1998 he said:In April 1996 Kim Beazley said to me that the Australian Labor Party was falling 10 years behind comparable parties in our policy development and our ideas. Now, that was the case then. We've probably got as much ground to make up now.That was Latham in October 1998. This was following the 1996 Howard landslide where Kim Beazley appointed Gareth Evans to go out and listen, to do some consultation, to remake Labor's policy platform to be more consonant with the needs and aspirations of modern Australia, rather than some archaeological throwback to the trades hall. Evans came back saying, `It just wouldn't be credible for us to somehow fundamentally reinvent ourselves; it's status quo; it's business as usual.' In October 1998 Latham said:I think Labor's first task of revival is intellectual. You know, there's no easy way through the massive contradictions facing the social democratic project. ... I think modern Labor has fallen into this trap, is saying: Oh look, if you're interested in economic efficiency you're really going to destroy society. I think you can do both in a social democratic party. If you can't do both, if you can't walk and chew gum at the same time, well, you're probably buggered anyway. Regarding what Kim Beazley's office had done to his education policy, he went on to say, `I felt more intellectually engaged and relevant in the shadow ministry of local government than I did in the Labor Party caucus.' (Time expired)10000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Order! The discussion is now concluded.Committees28574285742857410000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr Danby and Mr Melham to be members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in place of Mr McClelland and Mr L.D.T. Ferguson.Motion (by Mr Entsch)—by leave—agreed to:That Mr McClelland and Mr L.D.T. Ferguson be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and that, in their places, Mr Danby and Mr Melham be appointed members of the committee.Bills28574Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills:Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2001Prime Minister and Cabinet Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001Miscellaneous2857410000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—I advise the House that Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 9.40 a.m., has been fixed as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Committees28574285742857416:37:0028574Nehl, 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, 6 August 2001. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 6 August 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, 6 August 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 Treaties—Joint Standing Committee: Extradition: a review of Australia's law and policy.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 12.50 p.m.Speech time limits —Each Member —5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1 Mr Beazley: To present a Bill for an Act to require government advertising to meet minimum standards with respect to objectivity, fairness and accountability, and to prohibit the expenditure of taxpayers' money on advertising which promotes party political interests. (Government Advertising (Objectivity, Fairness and Accountability) Bill 2001 —Notice given 18 June 2001.)Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 15 minutes —pursuant to sessional order 104A.2 Mr Secker: To move—That this House:(1) expresses its support for the development of the Kokoda Track as a National Memorial Park; and(2) calls on the Government to: (a) support and fund the construction of an all weather road from Kokoda to Ower's Corner, and of educational memorials at each of the battle sites along the Track; (b) commemorate the 60th anniversary of our brave armed forces campaign with an Anzac Day Dawn Service in 2002 at Ower's Corner; and (c) establish a project team to oversee these matters, consisting of representatives of the Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Foreign Affairs, Defence, Veterans' Affairs and Environment and Heritage. (Notice given 5 April 2001.)Time allotted —private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.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, 4 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3 Ms Hall: To move—That this House:(1) condemns the Government for failing to ensure that residents in nursing homes receive an adequate standard of personal medical care;(2) notes the concerns of the families of nursing home residents and workers in the aged care industry about the impact of the Government's aged care policy on nursing home standards and care; and (3) calls on the Government to review its aged care policy to ensure that the wellbeing of nursing homes is paramount and not secondary to government savings. (Notice given 29 November 2000.)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.4 Mrs Hull: To move—That this House:(1) acknowledges the financial difficulties being experienced by certain sectors of the citrus industry;(2) recognises in particular those difficulties being experienced by the arid zone regions of southern Australia in the Riverina, Murray Valley and Riverland in particular reference to oranges;(3) commends orange growers for their willingness to engage in structural reform moving away from valencias for the juice concentrate markets towards markets for fresh fruit;(4) commends the industry for its huge effort in the export of navel oranges; and(5) calls for financial and export enhancement assistance to this significant industry in the arid zones of rural Australia. (Notice given 25 June 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]285752857516:38:0028575Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—On behalf of the Joint Statutory Committee on Public Works I present the seventh report for 2001 of the committee, titled Fitout of new central office building for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Belconnen, ACT.Ordered that the report be printed.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—by leave—This report relates to the fit-out of new central office accommodation for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The central office of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has been accommodated in the Benjamin Offices in Belconnen, Australian Capital Territory, since the 1970s. In February 2000 the Commonwealth sold the Benjamin Offices to Benjamin Nominees Pty Ltd, which proposes to redevelop the complex. It is this redevelopment which gives rise to the fit-out proposal.At the time of sale the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs held two separate leases in the Benjamin Offices complex. Benjamin Nominees Pty Ltd advised the department it would prefer the southern section of the complex to be vacated when the lease expired in February 2002 and that, if the department wished to remain in the complex, the rent would be increased to $235 per square metre per annum. The department considered this option to be unsatisfactory in view of the building's age related problems, energy and space utilisation inefficiencies, and high running costs. As an alternative, Benjamin Nominees Pty Ltd offered the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs the option of moving into a new, purpose-built complex on the Benjamin Offices site. Building construction would commence in mid-2001 and be completed in mid-2004. The department would fund and own the fit-out. The attractiveness of this option was enhanced considerably by the offer by Benjamin Nominees of a $7.75 million cash incentive towards the cost of the fit-out. Adding to the attractiveness of this option was a rental of less than $280 per square metre per annum. This rental compares favourably with the rates achieved by other government agencies for A-grade premises in Canberra. A recent comparison indicated a range of $305 to $405 per square metre per annum. A third option considered by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs was to move to accommodation away from the Benjamin Offices site. This option proved unsatisfactory due to the lack of available properties that met the department's needs with regard to timing and space requirements.I would like to make a few comments about the cost of the project. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has negotiated a guaranteed maximum price for trade works with the project builder for an integrated fit-out of the new commercial building to be constructed on the Benjamin North site. Any savings realised against the guaranteed maximum price will be shared on a fifty-fifty basis between the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the builder. The total project cost for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs fit-out works is $23.97 million. When the fit-out incentive of $7.75 million is brought to account, the net fit-out cost is $16.22 million.The new building option offers a number of advantages in addition to those already mentioned. A cost-benefit analysis prepared by an independent quantity surveyor established that, over 13 years, the new building proposal was cost neutral. The additional rental costs of the new building would be offset by ongoing savings for fit-out and maintenance work for the older buildings. The new building proposal also avoids costs payable if the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs were to take up either of the other two options—for example, the payment of approximately $2 million in `make good' costs when the department vacates the building. The new building option also avoids the dead rent payable if the department were to terminate its second lease early, in order to move its central office operations to a new site. Knight Frank Price Waterhouse estimated this dead rent to be up to $10.7 million. In addition, the new building development will provide further regeneration of the Belconnen Town Centre, creating short-term employment opportunities as well as boosting economic activity into the future.During the inquiry, the committee became aware it was examining a proposal to fit out a building that was yet to receive development approval. The committee considers this situation to be less than satisfactory and has therefore recommended that, in future, the referring agency obtain all necessary development approvals before referral to the Joint Statutory Committee on Public Works.The committee considers that every effort must be made to ensure suitable access for disabled staff and visitors to public buildings. The committee therefore sought advice from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs regarding the provisions being made for disabled persons in the proposed fit-out. The department advised that its builder, through its architect, would provide expert advice on disabled access issues. In addition, an independent quantity surveyor would audit all development design solutions through the construction period against legislative requirements and standards.The cost and conditions proposed for the new building option make it a highly competitive commercial offer. The new building will meet the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs's long-term accommodation goals. It will deliver a modern, A-grade building complex that is space and energy efficient, constructed with awareness of rapidly changing technologies, and equipped to meet government environmental targets and contemporary occupational health and safety standards. The committee recommends that the proposed fit-out of a new central office building for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs at Belconnen, Australian Capital Territory, proceed at a net cost to the Commonwealth of $16.22 million. In concluding my remarks., I would like to mention the support provided by the secretariat and, in particular, Ms Gemma Stone. Gemma is a participant in the Commonwealth's Senior Women in Management program, more commonly referred to as the SWIM program. As many members are aware, the SWIM program provides a means for promising women managers to broaden their skills and experience. In this context, placements in the parliament are important in terms of understanding the institution and how it works, and we have appreciated Gemma's and the committee's approach to this inquiry and their work on the report. I commend the report to the House.Bills28577R133628577Debate resumed from 20 June, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.16:45:0028577Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Account Bill 2001 is the product of two broken promises from this Prime Minister. First, he said, before the last election, which I am sure everyone can remember, that the price of ordinary beer would not increase as a result of the GST. Labor exposed the large increases that ordinary beer served across the bar would actually suffer. Eventually we forced the government into yet another backflip to reduce the level of beer taxes. The Prime Minister then promised that all the money collected during the period when beer prices had risen would go into a foundation to reduce the impact of excessive use of alcohol and other legal drugs. This promise has also now been broken, because the foundation has been short-changed and has not been set up as a properly accountable body. Let us just go back to that first broken promise. On 14 August 1998, just before the last election, the Prime Minister said about the GST:Across the board there is virtually no change in relation to alcohol. A tiny CPI equivalent rise in relation to ordinary beer. Perhaps a small reduction for low alcohol beer. Again on 14 August 1998, at a South Australian business luncheon, he said:... I think there will be a slight reduction, very slight reduction in the price of low alcohol beer. Then on the John Laws program, on 23 September, the Prime Minister said:There'll be no more than a 1.9 per cent rise in ordinary beer. He went on to say:... we have taken care to ensure that there is no significant increase in the price of alcohol and will be no greater ... in relation to beer for example, than the normal CPI increase.What was he telling John Laws? That there would be a 1.9 per cent increase in the price of ordinary beer. If that is not enough in terms of public radio, he also apparently talked at his party room meeting. We have that in the words of Eoin Cameron, a defeated Liberal member from the last election. When this shameful deceit of the government had been exposed, Eoin Cameron went on the radio on 25 February 2000 and said:But we were always told and I've got this from reliable information and I've checked it. It would be around 1 to 2 per cent. The Prime Minister said that the price of ordinary beer would go up 1.9 per cent, yet he, this Prime Minister, oversaw a program that put it up more than 10 per cent when excise indexation is taken into account. The Prime Minister repeatedly gave an absolutely watertight guarantee that the price of ordinary beer would go up only 1.9 per cent. It is Labor that have forced him to finally honour that promise. Make no mistake about it: Labor said, `You can't go to the last election promising one thing and do something completely different once you are in government.' We have insisted that this Prime Minister honour at least this promise. It is Labor that have driven the campaign to lower beer taxes, and the drinkers of beer in Australia can certainly thank Labor for providing them with some relief by forcing this Prime Minister to keep his promises. I well remember the night last year when I was at the Montmorency RSL, which I am sure Deputy Speaker Andrews knows, to present a flag. It was 30 June, the eve of the GST. The RSL members were outraged at the prospect of the increase in the price of beer that they knew they would be facing from the next day. They knew it was not going to be 1.9 per cent. I am very sure that they are pleased that this issue has finally been resolved and that the Prime Minister has been forced to keep the promise that he originally made—forced to keep a promise that Labor made sure came to fruition.By the time we had this backdown, we know that the government had collected $155 million in excises above the rate that had been passed into law. Labor called for this money to go into alcohol services and urged the establishment of a properly constituted foundation. The Labor Party was amongst the first to advocate that these excess collections should be put through a foundation, and that remains our view. In late March, I issued a joint media release with the shadow Treasurer, highlighting the specific programs on which we were negotiating with the brewers. The programs that we suggested this money should be put into were the promotion of responsible drinking patterns, research and treatment of alcoholism, support for community partnership programs related to alcohol education, reduction of domestic violence due to alcohol, and substance abuse in indigenous communities. We highlighted the fact that a significant proportion of draught beer sales occurs in rural areas and suggested that particular attention should be provided to programs in rural and regional Australia. A number of these themes have been picked up in the agreement entered into between the government and the Democrats, but there is one area that I am sorry to say at this stage has still been left out, and that is the impact of excessive alcohol abuse on domestic violence. At the moment, we see a great deal of debate in the press on the impact of domestic violence and child abuse. At the moment, the press is concentrating on that abuse in the Aboriginal community, but we know it is just as prevalent in the white community. I certainly hope that we can see some of these funds put into reducing the horrific impact of domestic violence in all of our communities, whether black or white.The focus of the foundation in the end, of course, will depend significantly on who is actually appointed. Once again, this is a process that we have no information about, except that the government and the Democrats intend to select people behind closed doors. The issue to be stressed here is that this money is not the government's money; it is a tax from beer drinkers collected contrary to the law. In the end, we know that yet another deal was done between the government and the Democrats. From what we know about the deal, this money is to be spent for specific purposes related to alcohol and other legal substance abuse programs. There is no actual definition provided of what is included under the heading of `licit' or `legal' drug use, but they are terms that I would imagine cover alcohol and tobacco use and may include petrol sniffing, what is known as `chroming', glue sniffing and pharmaceutical abuse. The deal between the government and the Democrats also contains a number of broad intentions about how the foundation is to operate and stipulates various things about how the money should be allocated. This includes at least 85 per cent being paid out to professional and community organisations and various minimums to be spent in the first year on treatment and rehabilitation, public education and prevention, including an overall minimum of 20 per cent on Aboriginal programs. There is a maximum stipulated of 10 per cent on administration and promotion in the first year. Because this agreement was negotiated in private, there is no information about how these proportions were arrived at and they are not included in the bill. As they apply during only the first year when $10 million will be spent, there is no indication of the proportions that will apply in subsequent years. Therefore the proportions do not apply to the vast bulk of proposed spending. It is understood that some of these matters may be dealt with in the constitution of the foundation, but unfortunately that document is not available to throw any light on the subject. One thing that needs to be clear is that this bill does not establish the proposed Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation Ltd, which will be a private company with directors selected by the Democrats and the coalition. All the bill does is establish a special account under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 from which payments will be made to the foundation when it is established. These payments will be constrained by funding agreements with the minister for health, but again there is no detail on the range of matters that will be covered by the funding agreements. The bill does contain an objects clause which spells out the general purposes that the $115 million is meant to support over the next four years. The foundation is required to spend the money on one or more of the purposes set out in the objects clause, but these objects are very broad and do not provide much guidance about what activities the foundation will be involved with. The minister has a power to terminate a funding agreement if the objectives of the foundation are inconsistent with the objects of the bill or if the foundation fails to comply with the conditions. This power at least is a disallowable instrument. If the agreement is terminated, the minister may enter into new agreements with replacement bodies. The only accountability provision is that any funding agreements must be tabled in parliament within 15 sitting days. It is difficult to discuss this bill because it deals with only a small part of the total proposal and the details of the foundation itself have not been revealed. There are a number of key areas of concern. Firstly, there is a need for the constitution of the proposed foundation to be tabled in the parliament before the bill is passed, because the bill is hard to understand without that information. Under the 3 April deal between the Democrats and the government, this constitution was to have been completed by mid-April. It is not even clear exactly what sort of body the foundation will be. Once again the 3 April deal refers to the foundation as being an `incorporated charitable trust'. However, the bill simply includes two versions of the name under the definition of `foundation' in clause 4. It is just not good enough that the constitution has not been open to comment by others and that it will not have any parliamentary consideration. Secondly, there are concerns about who will make up the board of the foundation. This is apparently a matter under negotiation between the coalition and the Democrats, but, as with these appointments, the matter should be subject to wider scrutiny. The board members will not be statutory office holders, will not be subject to any accountability requirements, and there is no procedure for the appointment of replacement members. This is unacceptable given the large amount of public funds—which were collected contrary to the law—which will be distributed by the foundation. The board should be made up of people with expertise in alcohol and other drug programs and expertise in managing community grants programs. I have to say there cannot be much confidence in a secret process for the appointment of these people. As we know, Senator Lees and this Prime Minister have conducted secret negotiations before. That process led to the goods and services tax and all the misery for Australian families and small businesses with which we are now also familiar. One would have thought that some lessons might have been learned from that secret process. There is no clarity about the terms of these board members, their remuneration, the provisions applying to conflicts of interest and many other matters which would normally be resolved by parliament before such a large sum is appropriated.I want to go to one critical issue, and that is about some of the money that seems to be missing. In April when the Howard government did its backflip we were told that the government had collected $155 million in surplus excise payments during the period 1 July 2000 to 3 April 2001, but this bill allocates only $115 million to the new Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation. Including the additional $5 million to go to heritage hotels, this leaves a gap of $35 million. Where is it? We just do not know. The government has refused to produce the Treasury figures that were relied on to arrive at its calculation of how much had been collected. The figures the government showed to the Democrats have never been shared with the rest of the Australian community. What, we might all ask, is the government hiding? Why won't it allow the Treasury to produce the figures on which its calculations are made? The public is entitled to know whether all of the money unlawfully obtained through overcharging of excise on beer is to be put into this new foundation. It is not just Treasury that has been involved in this exercise. Econtech, I understand, was also brought in. We have heard from the Prime Minister quite a lot about Econtech—I understand it is his preferred modeller—who did the work for the Democrats in arriving at the basis for a negotiated outcome. So who determined exactly how much had been overcollected? What we would all like to see is the evidence. What the Democrats actually signed off on on 3 April is the establishment of a private sector foundation to be given the agreed $115 million from the surplus beer excise collections during 2000-01. It has been a shonky deal from the outset. Not only was the foundation short-changed by $35 million but also the government has now decided to hand over the money spread over four years without any adjustment for interest. This deal done by the Democrats with the government behind closed doors provided that all the money would be paid across to the foundation at the outset and that 80 per cent of the foundation's funds would be spent in the first four years. This would have meant that the foundation could earn interest and that it would not have totally exhausted its resources after four years. In contrast to that deal, this bill provides for periodic payments of flat amounts, with 100 per cent of the money to be spent over the four years, after which the foundation will presumably be wound up or be privately funded. There is provision for any refunds from the funding agreements to be credited to the account. By contrast, the Natural Heritage Trust receives credits equal to the interest earned on its funds, and this foundation, if it had gone down that track, would have had access to interest income if the money had been paid out as provided for in the original agreement. So, in effect, the government has devalued the funding promise and shortened the life of the foundation. This short-changes the foundation by about $13 million at the current long-term bond rate of six per cent. I certainly hope that the Democrats will be just as angry about this reneging by the government. I remind the Democrats that this is not the Prime Minister's money; it is not the government's money. It is money that has been wrongly collected as a tax on draught beer in Australian pubs and clubs and all of it should be going into this alcohol foundation.The next issue of concern is the part of the deal for the foundation to submit a detailed business plan for approval by the government and the Democrats by August 2001. This business plan is the document that will guide the foundation's work, but it is approved through a political process. There is no requirement for the business plan to be released and no requirement for the foundation to operate under open and transparent processes, free of political bias. Given the massive rorting of the public purse to the tune of $20 million per month on political advertising over the next six months, there are legitimate suspicions about the government's motives. And I have to ask: why would the Democrats agree with this government reneging on its word over how much money is to go into this foundation? The Democrats apparently expected the business plan to be tabled in the parliament, but I understand that the government has refused and now wants to table the funding agreements only after they are signed. The funding agreements do not provide any parliamentary accountability. The extent of accountability to the executive government depends on the way they are drafted, and there is no indication from the government about what matters will be contained in these funding agreements. The fact that the funding agreements are tabled in the parliament does not provide any ability for the parliament to influence their content or to scrutinise the outcomes achieved.The 3 April deal also envisages that procedures for the foundation to report annually to the parliament should be included in the constitution of the proposed trust. However, this should be done with parliamentary authority in accordance with the annual reporting provisions that usually apply to similar bodies. The standard and timing of reports should be determined by the parliament in line with normal practice for similar bodies. It is simply inappropriate for a body to determine on its own behalf how and when it will report to the parliament. If the bill does not deal with these matters, it is quite possible that the foundation's constitution will not require it to report to parliament or that it may resolve in future years to just stop reporting. The government has been unable to provide satisfactory responses on this issue as well. The best it can suggest is that the annual reporting provision might be built into the funding agreement in some way, but it suggests that it will take the form of a requirement to report to the minister and then the minister may table the report. This of course is not the same thing as reporting to the parliament and does not give the parliament the ability to review the report or for it to be considered through a Senate estimates committee, as would be the case for any other body handling such large sums of public funds. The agreement also makes reference to monitoring and reporting on the cost effectiveness and social impact of the foundation, without clarifying by whom or where the foundation reports. These matters should certainly not be left to chance.The bill is also silent about the role of the Auditor-General. The 3 April deal envisages independent auditing of the accounts and performance of the foundation. But, given the large amount of public money involved, this should be conducted by the Auditor-General with parliamentary authority. The use of a commercial auditor will introduce problems in achieving the proper level of scrutiny of how the organisation has performed. The body of expertise in the Australian National Audit Office in relation to maintaining the probity of community grants programs would be ignored.The agreement refers to procedures for approval of grants but does not specify any requirements in relation to how probity and management of conflicts of interest will be managed in running what is a very large grant program by any measure. The legal issues of how funds will be recovered by the foundation from non-performing grant recipients also need to be resolved to ensure that public funds are not misused. The consequences and liability of board members for any maladministration by the foundation or its staff are all left up in the air because an attempt is being made to create this as a private body external to government and isolated from the probity and auditing provisions that decades of experience have proven are essential to protect public funds. This government's record on making political appointments is, as we know from our most recent example in the nursing homes area, disgraceful. We know how this Prime Minister operates, and this foundation looks like it is yet another example. I certainly hope that Senator Lees in her further negotiations will pick up some of these issues and make sure that we get a clean, accountable body. We do not want to have one that is going to be totally separate from these extremely important accountability mechanisms.Labor's preference would have been that the foundation be established on the proven model of the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. This is a body with a statutory base and direct lines of accountability to parliament and the Auditor-General for the spending of public funds. It is widely recognised as independent in its decision making and it enjoys support from all political parties, partly because each political party is represented on the board, which gives full transparency.There should be a defined board membership and a process for filling vacancies, and all the normal accountability provisions for a person holding public office. The foundation should, of course, be subject to the Auditor-General and should report formally to the parliament. This way, the money that was illegally taken from Australian beer drinkers would be known to be spent properly in the public interest by those concerned. We would like to see all the funds allocated to this foundation that were taken from beer drinkers and we certainly want to know that that happens. This has been against the government's wishes. They did not want to embark on this backflip; they were forced into it by Labor. The government would have preferred to continue to overcharge beer drinkers, even though they promised otherwise before the last election. We are pleased to see that this money will now go into programs to reduce the negative impacts of excessive alcohol consumption. But I certainly hope that in the process of the debate when this bill gets into the Senate a number of these very serious issues can be addressed and that we can get a properly constituted body that is not going to be subject to the sort of rorting we have come to expect from this government. 17:09:0028582Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—We have had 25 minutes from the opposition spokesperson on health and we had to wait for the last two sentences to hear anything about alcohol abuse and anything positive about spending $115 million on alcohol education, rehabilitation and research. Prior to the budget, the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, in their federal budget submission, were proposing a federal program to implement the national alcohol action plan. What this foundation will be doing will exceed what they had put in for in their budget submission.There have been some successes in controlling alcohol consumption and getting responsible alcohol consumption in Australia. Alcohol related road deaths and injuries have dropped by 20 per cent over the last decade. That is due to things like the .05 limit, much tighter control through random breath testing, a focus on responsible serving and also public education. The Northern Territory have adopted a multifaceted approach, which includes things like night patrols, sobering up shelters, community education campaigns and, again, a .05 limit, and that has had an impact up there.The memorandum of understanding negotiated for the establishment of this foundation had the goals of preventing alcohol and other licit substance abuse, including petrol sniffing, especially amongst indigenous Australians and youth. It also had a focus on evidence based treatment, rehabilitation, research and prevention and a focus on community education. It has been supported by the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia and the AMA and it has received positive comments from ATSIC.There is other research that could be considered by this foundation. Wernicke's encephalopathy, which is due to thiamine deficiency, is a condition seen in people who abuse alcohol. What has been found is that the rates in Australia appear to have decreased since thiamine fortification of flour occurred in 1991. A 1998 article in the Medical Journal of Australia by Harper et al actually showed that this has dropped. There has been a number of articles which have shown that thiamine fortification of flour has led to a reduction in one of the adverse effects of alcohol. Leslie Drew and Stewart Truswell, in the same article in the Medical Journal of Australia, on 1 June 1998, re-examined the issue of adding thiamine to beer. The problem in the past has been that this has been opposed by the breweries. But they suggested that perhaps the time had come to re-examine this issue and look at whether there is some possibility of a trial of adding thiamine to beer. Some studies have shown that this is a much more cost-effective way of reducing the incidence of Wernicke's encephalopathy and Korsakoff's psychosis, which are very overt signs of alcohol abuse.In Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities we find high risk drinking is more prevalent, more common, and we also find higher incidences of alcohol related domestic violence. So I welcome this foundation's support for evidence based treatment, rehabilitation and education which is culturally sensitive. Twenty per cent of the spending is to be targeted towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Among young people, consumption per capita has dropped, but we are seeing that people are commencing drinking at a younger age and that more young people are adopting high risk drinking behaviour, including things like drink driving and violence. Petrol sniffing is an important problem which this foundation will be addressing. It can lead to brain damage and even death. This government has a number of achievements in addressing alcohol abuse. First of all, the Commonwealth has been working with the state and territory governments to develop and implement a national alcohol strategy to build a healthier and safer community by minimising alcohol related harm to the individual, family and society. This strategy is expected to be endorsed by the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy in July 2001.In May last year, the federal budget allocated $4 million over four years to support a range of Commonwealth activities under the national alcohol strategy. These include funding of the development of a national alcohol research agenda to identify major gaps in alcohol research as well as funding work force development initiatives. This foundation will complement the work that this government has already done in addressing the serious issue of alcohol abuse. We have also had the $5 million national alcohol campaign which was launched in February last year by the Minister for Health and Aged Care and was in a booster phase late last year. We are also reviewing the NHMRC Australian drinking guidelines. Many people would be familiar with these guidelines, released in 1992, which recommended up to one to two drinks for women and up to three to four drinks for men. Those guidelines are quite well known in the community as being the low risk drinking levels. The guidelines are being reviewed and will be released later this year and widely disseminated again.There had been a number of indigenous initiatives before the establishment of this foundation. The Commonwealth has funded a number of initiatives, including the development and national implementation of `National recommendations for the clinical management of alcohol in indigenous primary health care settings' to provide clinicians with a better understanding of the social context and natural history of alcohol use in indigenous communities. To further assist communities to develop strategies to address alcohol misuse, the Commonwealth has also funded the printing and distribution of The Grog Book—Strengthening Indigenous Community Action on Alcohol. In addition, the Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health is funding the production of Deadly Vibe magazine and the Deadly Sounds radio program to promote health related messages to young people about alcohol, tobacco and other drugs.In the area of co-morbidity, some of the most vulnerable people in our community are those with a mental health disorder who also require treatment for substance abuse. In October last year, the Minister for Health and Aged Care approved a range of initiatives to further develop and inform the evidence base for identifying, managing and treating people presenting with co-morbidity in primary care and general practice settings. These include the development of a monograph, a number of scoping studies and updating the 1997 Review of diagnostic screening instruments for alcohol and other drug use and other psychiatric disorders.According to figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in Australia beer is the most widely consumed beverage, followed by wine and then spirits. By international comparison, Australia is 19th in the consumption of pure alcohol per year, ninth in consumption of beer, with 94½ litres per person, and 18th in the consumption of wine, with 19.7 litres per person consumed per year. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare also found that seven per cent of males and four per cent of females were drinking at hazardous or harmful levels. It has also found that consumption has been stable over the last five or six years. In fact, within those figures, you find that consumption of low alcohol beer has actually increased. Over the 1990s, surveys have shown that about 60 per cent of people are regular drinkers and 20 per cent are occasional drinkers, and that has also remained stable.More than 3,300 people die each year from alcohol related incidents. That includes road accidents, stroke, alcoholic liver cirrhosis and suicide. There are also an estimated 7,700 serious road injuries and 400 road deaths each year that are related to high risk alcohol consumption. The misuse of alcohol costs the Australian community about $4.5 billion annually. Figures from a November 2000 study by the National Drug Research Institute show that, in 1998, 51 per cent of all alcohol consumed in Australia posed a short-term health risk to the drinker; nine per cent of both male and female drinkers were at medium or high risk of long-term health problems due to alcohol, for example, liver disease; 46 per cent of male and 32.5 per cent of female drinkers were at risk of short-term harm from drinking—that is, injury—at least once a month; and people aged below 25 had the most risky drinking patterns. During 1995 there were more than 86,000 hospital separations associated with alcohol and in 1992 there were 735,000 bed days. Overall, this gives a picture of some success in educating the community about responsible drinking and educating business about responsible serving, but the cost of alcohol abuse to the Australian community is still enormous. There is also alcohol related violence and, notwithstanding the fact that the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows that there has been a reduction in the number of victims of alcohol related violence, the level remains unacceptable. The government is committed to reducing the harm arising from the misuse of alcohol and other licit substance abuse, including petrol sniffing, particularly among vulnerable population groups such as indigenous Australians and youth. As a result of the agreement between the Prime Minister and the Democrats to direct the proceeds of the changes in excise collections and customs duty on draught beer, the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation is proposed to be established.The previous speaker mentioned two areas of concern. The first was largely a historic one about the price rises in draught beer in pubs and the second one related to the accountability of this foundation. The foundation's accountability will be provided through legislation, through the funding agreement and also through the constitution of the foundation. Both of the documents—the funding agreement and the constitution—will incorporate the undertakings given in the memorandum of understanding between the government and the Democrats. Under the legislation, if the minister decides to terminate an agreement with the foundation, such a determination is a disallowable instrument. A determination by the minister to appoint a replacement body for the foundation is also a disallowable instrument. The funding agreement, which will be the mechanism through which funds flow from the special account to the foundation, and any variations to the agreement will be required to be tabled in the parliament. The constitution and the funding agreement will adopt requirements of the MOU, including a requirement to report annually to the parliament through the Minister for Health and Aged Care on grant allocation decisions and overall operations.The constitution and the funding agreement will also require the foundation to abide by funding quotas being directed to certain elements of the foundation's activities, including administration and promotion, no more than 10 per cent; treatment and rehabilitation, at least 30 per cent; public education, at least 10 per cent; prevention, at least 20 per cent. Additionally, at least 20 per cent of the funding will be directed to projects targeting indigenous Australians, and at least 85 per cent of funds must be outsourced to professional and community organisations.As stated in the legislation, if the foundation does not perform in accordance with its objectives or breaches its funding agreement, the minister can determine a replacement recipient for the funds. Any such determination is a disallowable instrument, and the funding agreements entered into between the Commonwealth and the foundation will be tabled in the parliament. That does respond to the accountability of this foundation.As I stated before, alcohol abuse is a serious problem in our community. We have seen great reductions in the number of alcohol related deaths in driving over the last 10 years. That has continued. It has dropped by 20 per cent. We have also over the last five years seen a number of initiatives by the government which do address the issues of education, rehabilitation, research and prevention in the area of alcohol abuse. I commend the bill to the House. 17:23:0028585Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I would like to speak on this very important issue. Obviously, alcohol abuse and related education and rehabilitation programs are things that all in this House think are incredibly important. I can agree with some of the sentiments of the speaker before me, the member for Boothby. What is worrying, however, is that the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Account Bill 2001 that we are debating includes neither the assurances nor many of the aims that he discussed. It is very worrying to the opposition that the government has essentially been forced into taking this action and, by acting with some haste to try to cover up the mistakes that it has made in this area, having broken its promises in relation to the price of beer, has put together an unusually shoddy piece of legislation. I am sure that the draftspeople would have been quite able to draft provisions that did actually include the detail that would reflect the memorandum of agreement between the government and the Democrats, had they been directed to do so. It seems to me more likely not that there has not been time but that there has not been a will to actually set up a foundation in a way which makes it truly accountable to this parliament.This is of great concern, because when we are dealing with an issue as important as this—and we are going to expend a lot of public money—it is important that we actually make sure that there is some strategic way that the money is spent, that we actually have principles that are applied and that the parliament can review that in some way. To suggest that the accountability procedures that are in the current bill are sufficient is just ludicrous, and I intend to take the House through that in a little bit more detail.The member for Boothby did quote some figures about alcohol abuse. I also had some figures provided in some material produced by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in Canberra, published in March 2000, although the statistics are based on drug use in Australia in 1998. This material makes the point—and this is fairly obvious to a lot of people—that alcohol is second only to tobacco as the major cause of drug related mortality in Australia. It states that in 1997 approximately 3,700 deaths were attributable to the excessive use of alcohol. That is an extraordinary number. Coming from the electorate of Gellibrand where, unfortunately, we deal day to day heavily with issues relating to heroin use, both street use and other use, to be reminded that the deaths that occur from alcohol abuse far exceed even our most horrific figures, last year's in particular, of heroin overdoses in this country keeps things in perspective.It is very important that we deal with the issues of both illicit and licit drug use at the same time. One of my concerns about the way this legislation is being rushed through and the way this extraordinary amount of money is going to be allocated to treating alcohol related problems is that there seems to be no consideration given to how this should fit in with a whole national strategy for drug prevention. That is worrying when we know that many of the causes that lead people to excessive alcohol abuse or excessive drug use—illicit or licit—can actually be linked. We cannot continue to look at these issues in isolation.At the start of the year I undertook an electorate swap with my colleague the member for McMillan and spent some time in the Latrobe Valley, where one of the issues that we share in common are some concerns with drug abuse, both licit and illicit. Raised with both of us during this swap, something that newly came to our attention, was the growing problem amongst young people of chroming. This is the equivalent of petrol sniffing, although with spray paints. The same problems that occur with regulating petrol sniffing occur with regulating chroming, because the purchase of spray paint is not in itself unlawful. The regulation of it is very difficult. Chroming can cause great damage to our young people, who seem to be particularly attracted to it as a cheap form of drug use, and it is not one of the things that we even seek to deal with in this bill. This would not perhaps matter if we actually had some guidelines that dealt with the potential to treat alcohol or drug issues—licit or illicit—that related to young people and some sort of criteria upon which the foundation is going to provide grants to community organisations. But the objectives, because they are very brief and because they do limit the way this money might be able to be spent, are limiting in a way that is not necessarily going to be constructive. If we are going to deal with alcohol abuse and other licit substance abuse, we need to make sure that we actually set up a structure which deals with new problems as they arise, and if chroming is one of those then it is something that the community needs to look at too. I am concerned that this bill, brief as it is, does not have any proper accountability process—and not just in the way that the foundation is set up. I am concerned that the member speaking before me, on the other side, indicated that one of the ways that accountability would be enforced when the foundation spends this money is through funding agreements tabled in the parliament. I think that we do need to bother to go to the provisions of the bill, to sections 9 and 12, which make clear—when you read them with the definition—that the funding agreements that are going to be tabled will essentially only detail the handing over of money from this particular account, which is being set up by this bill, to the foundation. The funding agreements are not the agreements that are actually going to provide funding to the community organisations. So the terms of any grant made to a community organisation, the way that the foundation might be assessing those grants and who it is providing money to are not actually going to be able to be checked. That is, the parliament itself is not going to be able to check where these grants are going, who they are going to and on what criteria they are being assessed.It is a very strange accountability process where this parliament can choose to remove the foundation and replace it with another organisation if the parliament feels that it is not doing its job properly. In fact, I think the provisions allow for the minister to do that if he or she thinks it is not doing its job properly. That means not that there is any way for this parliament to be able to assess the giving of grants but that, should there be a falling out between the people who are appointed to this foundation, should the grants that are made not comply with the government of the day's particular electoral strategy at the time, the minister can haul the foundation in and say, `We are going to replace you with another organisation,' and that is the process of accountability. That seems to me a very strange way of trying to set up what is being described by members opposite as a `separate independent organisation'. All of those nice sounding words do not appear in the bill. There is not any structure which provides that that independence will be maintained. While the words exchanged and the memorandum of agreement between the government and the Democrats might provide some relief to those opposite, it does not provide very much satisfaction for those of us on this side of the House who may be a little more cynical about the way this money is going to be used.I believe that I have cause to be cynical about the way the government is going to spend its money in the area of drug initiatives. My electorate of Gellibrand unfortunately suffers from some serious drug related issues, but none of the community organisations and service providers in my electorate received a single cent from this government in the last round of the Tough on Drugs funding. There were three organisations that put in very good applications—the Western Region Health Care Centre, the Westgate Division of Family Medicine and the Footscray District Football League—and all these applications were rejected. All three of them sought to deal with drug issues in a completely different way—one involving educating GPs; another involving a mentoring program with young people, trying to use sport as a way to entice young people away from drug use; and the other looking at an innovative primary health care model for drug users. These applications were not successful in receiving grants. The government has spent a reasonable amount of money in this area and has certainly spent an extraordinary amount of money on advertising. The service providers on the ground who need that money in my electorate have not seen any of it. So I am concerned. And this is a process which does provide for a little more accountability than the one being set up under this bill. It worries me that the provisions that people are speaking about as if they are in the bill, as if we passed this legislation they would become law, are not actually there. Members opposite and the government, if they are supporting this bill on the understanding that those provisions are in it, need to actually go and read the bill. They need to be lobbying their minister, they need to be getting this redrafted and they need to be supporting amendments in the Senate that would make sure there is a proper system set up.In my electorate we luckily have a lot of community organisations that deal with the range of alcohol and drug abuse issues in a very effective way. Last week I met with the Youth Outreach Team—they call themselves YOT—who deal specifically with young people. They handle concerns of people between the ages of 10 and 21 who work, live or study in the western suburbs of Melbourne. They have dedicated staff for a range of particular areas and they concentrate on people particularly within that age group. As speakers before me have mentioned, this is an age group where there is some concern about increased alcohol abuse, so it is an issue that we need to concentrate on. They have dedicated staff that concentrate particularly on alcohol and drug use by young people from South-East Asian backgrounds and they provide both residential and home based withdrawal programs, including recreation and reintegration programs, where they work with young people and their families. The Youth Outreach Team have an incredibly long waiting list, and they do not seem to ever have sufficient funding to be able to do what is required. The problem with a long waiting list, as many of us would know, is that if the young people who find themselves with these problems and who are prepared to undertake withdrawal programs have to wait for eight or nine weeks for a place—I think they are some of the current estimates from this team—they may well have already fallen back into their using habits. It is something that I think we need to look at. It worries me that I have no way of being able to approach this group to tell them that there is legislation in the parliament, we have no idea of how that money is going to be spent, we have no idea who it is going to be applied to and we have no idea what the criteria will be.The government is telling us that it is all going to be accountable and above board and that people will know what the guidelines are. But I do not want to be in the position where in six months time we have an announcement immediately before the election of all the programs that are going to get money out of this $115 million or so and the community organisations doing the hard yards now in my electorate will not have been able to apply for it. I think it is appropriate to have an expectation, as a local member of parliament, that I will be able to read legislation that is being proposed by this government and be able to talk to people in my electorate and tell them what is being proposed and how it will work. That is not an unreasonable request. This bill really does nothing more than appropriate money for a particular purpose. I think it is legitimate that anyone that is concerned about alcohol abuse and the seriousness of alcohol abuse would want to make sure that there are a few more protections put in there.I would like also to take the opportunity to commend the work of the Maribyrnong City Council, which has been very innovative in establishing a drugs strategy for the region. It has not been an easy task and they are acutely aware that, in the strategies that they have proposed, we need to deal with a range of issues together. We need to deal with education and prevention, health and social consequences of alcohol and drug abuse, and a number of other issues related to heroin use that do not necessarily arise in relation to alcohol abuse. I would like to commend the work that they have done. I think it is to their credit that they have been working so well with various service providers in the area.I believe that Labor's drug policy announced earlier this year would give much more scope for areas that do have specific problems, like Maribyrnong, to be able to apply for specific community safety zone status to enable them to work with all the service providers, the councils and state and federal governments to set up a strategy which would be appropriate for their area. I hope that the way this money is going to be spent will be sufficiently flexible to allow organisations that want to work in this cooperative way to apply for that money, particularly as this money is being dedicated to alcohol abuse. The money should also be able to be sought by, and grants should be made available to, those organisations that are going to deal with the range of problems that people might present with. Some of the statistics that people will have seen indicate that often people with drug and alcohol related issues have multiple issues that need to be dealt with. We do not want to create a system where a young person in crisis needs to go to four different service providers or four different health care services to get treatment for their different problems. I would also like to raise briefly that I have recently met, as I regularly do, with senior school students in my electorate—SRC students and others who are interested in politics. They meet regularly at the same time in my office to discuss issues of concern to them and to raise with me issues they think politicians should be taking up or debating more seriously. One of the things they have urged me to look at are the sorts of drug services that exist in the western suburbs of Melbourne and how we can get better information to people about the services. One of the great challenges for people who are trying to design education campaigns—and I know the government has faced this problem—is the format in which it is provided. The way we make it interesting and attractive, particularly to young people, is extremely important. With this in mind, those young students have suggested to me that they would like, with my assistance, to try to produce some stickers that can be distributed through the schools, pointing people in the right direction if they want help with alcohol and drug advice or if they need access to rehabilitation or detox services. They were very adamant in their criticism that they did not want material that just told them that they should discuss this with their parents. What they strongly said was this: `Discussing it with our parents isn't much use when they don't know about these issues.' Some of them even said, `They might be the ones who have some of these problems, as well, and we might be the ones wanting information that we can give to them about where they can go to have their problems treated and dealt with.' I think that is a legitimate concern, because people are aware that an enormous amount of money is being spent by the government on their education program, which has one single message: `Talk to your parents.' That message might be fine, but it needs to be backed up by other things: the provision of services, the provision of information to people who cannot get it from their parents, and the provision of information to parents themselves so that when kids talk with them they can provide some more details.My concern is that it is already a complicated area. We do already dedicate money to it. We should be strategic about the way we spend money in the alcohol and drug abuse area. We should not do it on the run. The government have been forced to do it on the run because they basically could not keep their promise in relation to the beer excise. They have been embarrassed into doing it and we are now grateful that, forced as they are to keep their promise, there is money available for programs that should be worth while. We would like to ensure that the money is going to be spent on programs that are appropriate. We do not have the confidence that that will happen. When we have not seen the constitution for the foundation, when we do not know the membership of the foundation, when the funding arrangements and grant application processes are not going to be public, and when the business plan is not going to be public, it is very difficult for us to have any confidence that this bill will actually deliver something of use to the community at large, which is still very concerned about alcohol abuse and the abuse of other licit substances. They are entitled to have the confidence that that money will be spent properly. I urge the government to reconsider the way this bill is drafted and to pick up some of the points that the shadow minister for health has raised in the debate today and to make sure that, if we are going to spend that money on the treatment of alcohol related problems, we do it properly and in a way that is transparent for the whole community. 17:43:0028589Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—The establishment of the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation and the associated funding of $115 million over the next four years is a very positive step forward in addressing a major social and health issue in this country. I have to confess that it was rather disappointing to see the opposition trying to find something negative to say instead of wholeheartedly supporting what is an excellent initiative in this Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Account Bill 2001.There would be very few of us whose lives have not in some way been touched by the effects of alcohol abuse—through family, friends or peers who have suffered disease, injury, death, financial loss, domestic violence or family breakdown because of the misuse of alcohol. Much research has been done on the various effects of alcohol abuse, and the record of adverse health and social effects provides very strong justification indeed for the positive measures contained in this bill. The health effects are well known. The evidence indicates that alcohol abuse is the second highest preventable cause of hospitalisation and death in this country.According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, there are over 3,200 alcohol related deaths and close to 50,000 hospital episodes a year. The 1998 National Drug Strategy household survey indicated that 40 per cent of men and 32 per cent of women exceeded safe drinking levels at least once a month and that nine per cent of men and women reported consuming alcohol at levels that pose long-term health risks. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare study on the Australian burden of disease provided a comprehensive assessment of levels and causes of ill health in Australia. Its conclusion was that the net effect of alcohol consumption was around 2.2 per cent of the total burden. The beneficial effects of moderate alcohol consumption on heart disease and hypertension are strongly outweighed by the harmful effects, which include various cancers, cirrhosis and stroke, as well as self-inflicted injury and accidents. The National Drug Research Institute's study in 1997 indicated that over 900 people died in that year from alcohol related accidents. Further, alcohol is the main cause of road deaths in Australia. It is implicated in about one-third of all motorist deaths and 45 per cent of all pedestrian fatalities. In a rather interesting calculation, the March 2001 Medical Journal of Australia estimates that some 62,000 life years are lost each 12 months due to alcohol abuse—that is, lives tragically cut short because of the abuse and overconsumption of alcohol.Domestic and family problems sadly are known to many. The change in behaviour patterns resulting from alcohol abuse impacts negatively on many relationships and families. At least one per cent of the population have a close family member with a serious alcohol problem. The resulting manifestations often include isolation, neglect, violence, aggression or abuse. One report found that alcohol was involved in 53 per cent of reported cases of family violence. These figures probably underestimate the level of alcohol related problems because of under-reporting. Further, children with an alcoholic parent are more likely to be depressed, suffer in their schooling or themselves become alcohol dependent later in life. It is estimated from a number of studies that close to half of all convictions for violent crimes and prison sentences for offences of violence or the threat of violence involve alcohol. In cases of sexual assault, alcohol has been implicated in one-third of cases. In 1992, 294 people died from alcohol related violent assaults.The financial costs to the community are massive. Estimates vary, but the common view is that the financial burden of alcohol abuse to Australia is over $4 billion a year. A 1996 study by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care put the figure at $4.5 billion. These costs are enormous, yet the bulk of them are avoidable. Up to 85 per cent, or $3.8 billion per year, is estimated to be able to be avoided by more responsible consumption of alcohol and by the prevention of excessive consumption.As we know, all groups in society are vulnerable to the effects of alcohol abuse, and some more than others—particularly Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander communities and young people. While it is true that many indigenous communities are alcohol free and that many within some indigenous communities do not consume alcohol, those who do, on the evidence, are more likely to be adversely affected or adopt high risk drinking habits. Alcohol abuse and alcohol related violence have been identified by many indigenous communities as one of the most serious social issues they face. Young people are also particularly at risk from alcohol abuse. While the total per capita consumption of alcohol in Australia has decreased over the past two decades, more young people are drinking, and what is more worrying is that they are drinking at an earlier age and are more likely to be adopting high risk patterns of drinking. A recent National Drug Strategy survey found that 70 per cent of young people over 14 drink on some occasions and 66 per cent of these young people drink at hazardous levels. Data also indicates that 89 per cent of substance related hospital episodes for 15- to 34-year-olds relate to alcohol. The risks associated with alcohol abuse by young people are exacerbated by a lack of experience, a lack of awareness of how to handle the effects of alcohol on their bodies and, especially for boys, an inclination towards risk taking behaviour. The result is much greater exposure to alcohol related injuries or death, such as those resulting from motor vehicle accidents. It is estimated that one-third of driving deaths in the 15- to 24-year-old age group result directly from alcohol.The many tragic effects of alcohol on individuals, on families and on society are well known. This bill establishes the funding mechanism for the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation. It will provide $115 million to the foundation over the next four years. This is a very welcome addition to tackling a very severe health and social problem. The objectives of the foundation, in the words of this legislation, will be: to prevent alcohol and other licit substance abuse, including petrol sniffing, particularly among vulnerable population groups such as indigenous Australians and youth; to support evidence based alcohol and other licit substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation, research and prevention programs; to promote community education, encouraging responsible consumption of alcohol and highlighting the dangers of licit substance abuse; and to provide funding grants to organisations with appropriate community linkages to deliver the abovementioned services on behalf of the foundation.There are many fine organisations in our community whose workers are out in their field with their sleeves rolled up, actively involved in education, prevention and rehabilitation programs. This foundation will do a lot to assist them in the tremendous work that they are already doing in our community to help those whose lives have been ravaged by the effects of alcohol abuse. The other function of the foundation will be to promote public awareness of its work, to raise further funds from the private sector in order to multiply the effects of this funding and to further enhance its ongoing work.For young people, the foundation will help develop programs aimed at education and the promotion of positive attitudes and behaviour patterns that will help them avoid the harmful consequences of excessive drinking. Education and prevention are certainly better than cure. For indigenous young people, one of the targets will be petrol sniffing. While this only affects a minor percentage of the population, its consequences are tragic for the abusers, their families and their communities. Foundation funding will be targeted at early intervention and at prevention. One of the positive features of the funding agreement is that the bulk of the money will be used directly in projects at the coalface. No more than 10 per cent will be used for administration, at least 30 per cent will go to treatment and rehabilitation, at least 10 per cent is for public education and at least 20 per cent is for prevention. Over 85 per cent of the funding will be outsourced to professional and community organisations that have the expertise in tackling these problems.It is worth reminding ourselves that this strategy, excellent as it is, is not the government's first step in tackling problems of alcohol abuse. We have already been actively involved in other programs, trying to prevent abuse and to provide rehabilitation. For example, the Commonwealth is working with state and territory governments to develop and implement a national alcohol strategy to help build a safer and healthier community by minimising alcohol related harm to individuals, family and society. Last year, $5 million was allocated by the Minister for Health and Aged Care through the national alcohol campaign. The National Health and Medical Research Council is currently finalising Australian drinking guidelines to provide Australians with knowledge and understanding of low risk drinking behaviours and patterns. Already other indigenous programs are in place. With regard to alcohol related harm in indigenous communities, the Commonwealth has already funded a number of initiatives, including work to provide clinicians with a better understanding of the social context of alcohol use in indigenous communities. Work is also being done on co-morbidity. In October 2000, the Minister for Health and Aged Care approved a range of initiatives to further develop the evidence base for identifying, managing and treating people presenting with co-morbidity in primary care and general practice settings. The government is already tackling problems of alcohol abuse and excessive consumption. This government has been working for some time to address these problems—working on education, on prevention and on rehabilitation. The establishment and funding of this foundation is an excellent additional step forward in reducing the suffering associated with the excessive consumption of alcohol. I am pleased to see the government taking this very positive step and I look forward to the positive outcomes that will result from this legislation.17:55:0028591Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—In speaking on the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Account Bill 2001, I am pleased to see that there is some commitment to spending $115 million on the abuse of legal drugs. I think that this is a vital area, because legal drugs in Australia kill very many more people than illegal drugs. In fact, smoking is the biggest single cause of preventable deaths in developed countries around the world. One study estimated that in 1995—there are not, unfortunately, more recent figures—there were three million people killed worldwide from smoking related causes. The number of people killed is predicted to increase to 10 million in coming years. In part that is because, as countries become wealthier and as people have more disposable income, smoking rates often rise in that first step from being a less developed country to a more developed country. As smoking rates rise and as women start to smoke in developing countries, you see a quite dramatic increase in mortality associated with smoking.In Australia in 1997, the estimated number of smoking related deaths was about 18,200—an enormous number of people. It means that in Australia about 50 people a day die from smoking related causes. In fact, that figure accounted for 15.3 per cent of deaths from all causes in all age groups. If you think about it, if it were anything else that was killing that many people in Australia it would be illegal. It would be banned and it would certainly be the focus of a lot more attention than we have given smoking in this country. Smoking accounts for 80 per cent of all drug related deaths—as I said, that is about 18,200 deaths. The more precise figure is that 18,224 people died from tobacco related causes in 1997. That compares with 3,668 deaths from alcohol related causes and only—although the number is still very much too high—832 deaths related to illicit drug use. The fear of drug abuse is centred so much on illicit drug use, yet the number of people who are dying from legal drug use is very much higher.The cost to the Australian community of medical bills and lost productivity is almost inestimable. In 1988, it was estimated that $7 billion was lost, but that estimate does not include the hidden costs, like fires that are started when people fall asleep as they are smoking, for example. Firefighters say that they believe that cigarettes are one of the leading causes of fires in homes around the country. The good news on tobacco consumption is that we have just recently heard that figures are slowly reducing in Australia. We had some very good news last week, and that is that the figures for November 2000 showed that about 20.3 per cent of Australia's population smoke. That is quite a drop from 1992, when the figure was 25.1 per cent. So it has dropped by almost 5 per cent in eight years. The bad news about these figures is that young girls are still taking up smoking at a much higher rate than other people in the community. The smoking rate for women between the ages of 16 and 34 is about 30 per cent—much higher than for the general population. In fact, it is almost 10 per cent higher than the rate for the general population. We need to work out why it is that young girls are still taking up smoking at such a high rate. Of course, it has to do with risk taking behaviour that all teenagers engage in, but it seems to be affecting young women in a much greater way than young men.I hope that some of the money allocated will be spent on tobacco related education programs and alcohol related education programs. It is a substantial amount, and I hope it will be well spent. I am concerned about government spending in relation to drug advertising. I have to say that the campaign that urges parents to talk to their teenagers is laughed at by the people at whom it is aimed. Teenagers are not paying any attention to this government's sponsored advertising. It is a $23 million campaign and, if it has stopped one young person experimenting with drugs, I would be absolutely amazed. This advertising campaign is not aimed at people who are vulnerable to drug use or drug abuse; it is aimed at reassuring their parents that the government is doing something about the problem of drug use in this community. It is not aimed at the people who are vulnerable to using drugs; it is aimed at reassuring their parents and, I have to say, winning their votes at the next election.Heroin abuse is an enormously important and serious issue. The way that young people are responding to this advertising is not by taking the issue of drugs more seriously but by poking fun at the advertisements. I have been doing a bit of a straw poll as I talk to young people in the schools I visit and I have been asking them what they think of the advertising. I have been doing what the advertising urges: I have been talking to young people about drugs. Their responses have been universally contemptuous of the advertising campaign. I think it is worth having a look at the satirical newspaper, the Chaser Online, that had an article about the advertising campaign entitled `Addict stops using smack after talk with parents'. Heroin abuse is not funny in any way, but the satirical purpose of this newspaper is to draw attention to how ridiculous it is to suggest that people who are vulnerable and at risk of using drugs, or perhaps already using drugs, will be saved from a life of drug abuse by just having a quiet chat with their parents. The satirical article states:A 21-year-old heroin addict has agreed to give up his habit after his parents told him that using drugs was wrong.This just draws attention to the fact that the advertising campaign is not aimed at young people who are vulnerable to drug abuse; it is aimed at their parents and it is aimed at reassuring them. I hope that the $115 million that we are talking about for this foundation will be better spent than the $23 million that we have seen being spent so far on this government's advertising campaign.One of the keys to making sure that the money is better spent is to ensure that it is spent on proven evidence based approaches to dealing with the problems of licit drug use or drug abuse. One of the examples that have come out of the New South Wales drugs summit of a government being prepared to take an evidence based approach to dealing with the problem of drug abuse is the medically supervised injecting room in my electorate. Figures have been released recently showing that, in its first month of operation, staff of the medically supervised injecting room revived four people who overdosed on their premises. Since that time, the director tells me, several more have been revived. These are people who come into the medically supervised injecting room alone, who would have been injecting alone, which is a major risk factor for fatal overdose. People who inject alone are much more likely to die if they overdose. Very importantly, they have referred about 48 people on to other treatment services and counselling services—that is, 48 people out of slightly over 300 people who registered to use the centre. So they have a much higher than 10 per cent strike rate when it comes to appropriately referring people on to other services that might help them stop using heroin. It is a much more effective way of spending taxpayers' money and making sure that we have some real results for people who are heroin users. It is much more effective than glossy advertising brochures that are designed to reassure parents that the government is doing something about drug use. To make sure that the money will be spent wisely, we have to ensure that it is based on proven evidence based interventions. We also need to make sure that there is some proper accountability with this foundation. It is very clear to anyone who is debating the legislation before us that it contains very little in the way of accountability. The objects of the foundation need to be much clearer. Details of its constitution should be available to us before we agree to it. Most importantly, the spending of the foundation should be able to be scrutinised, at least by the estimates committees. There is no parliamentary accountability, there is no ability to influence the content of the agreement that the foundation is signing with charities and others that will be beneficiaries of the foundation, and there is no ability for the parliament to scrutinise the outcomes of the money that we are spending on behalf of taxpayers. That is an incredibly serious flaw in the legislation before us. We need to ensure that the foundation is accountable to the parliament and to the Auditor-General.We also need to ensure that the people who are appointed to the foundation have some expertise in the area that they are dealing with. This is a very important area and a very serious problem in the community. I do not think that we can afford to be appointing people like, for example, Minister Bishop's campaign director to a foundation that spends so much of taxpayers' money and is charged with such an important public policy role. We need to make sure that these people have some real contribution to make and that they are either experts in the field of drug and alcohol counselling or experts in some other field that bears a real relation to the issues at hand.This parliament needs to know what the appointment procedures will be. At the moment, it seems that the government and the Democrats will get together and make a few appointments. We do not know anything about the procedures involved. We do not know what happens if these people have a conflict of interest, how they will be replaced if they need to be replaced, nor anything about remuneration. All of these discussions seem to be taking place in private. If we are spending $115 million of taxpayers' money, that is really not good enough.We need to make sure, as I said earlier, that advertising does not become the main focus of this $115 million. I was pleased to see that there is a 10 per cent limit on spending on administration and advertising of the fund but I would like to be confident that that cap on advertising actually extends a little beyond just advertising the fund. I would hope that it does not mean a 10 per cent cap on administration and advertising of the fund but that we can also spend another $60 million on advertising that is drug specific.In my own electorate there are any number of drug and alcohol services that are doing enormously good work, and I would be very hopeful that some of them will see some increase of funding coming from this foundation. Some of them deal with illicit drug use and they are all crying out for funds: the needle exchanges in my electorate at the Kirkton Road Centre and the Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol, CEIDA, at Rozelle; Odyssey House; and St Vincent's Hospital Drug and Alcohol Service. People will know Alex Wodak, who is very involved with that service and does an excellent job with it. Many of these services deal with illicit drugs but also alcohol, and I would really like to see their funding increased.I also think that there is a real role for channelling some of this money to the services that deal with the fallout from alcohol abuse. They deal in part with the abuse itself but they are also dealing with the other problems of people who are addicted to alcohol or to illicit drugs and, more and more, people who are problem gamblers. They are services like the Matthew Talbot Hostel, which is just around the corner from where I live in Woolloomooloo and sleeps about 300 people every night. The Matthew Talbot Hostel is, at the moment, in the process of opening a new service, which is Charles O'Neil House. The Matthew Talbot has a long history of assisting homeless men whose lives have been affected by alcoholism and drug abuse and it is currently providing counselling, hostel accommodation and meals. What it wants to do is create a stepping stone, in Charles O'Neil House, to reintegration with the broader community. They are trying to set up Charles O'Neil House as part of their First Step program, and that will provide a program of health improvement, education, training and long-term support, leading to employment and independence. In a supportive environment, men will be taught life skills, cooking, shopping, and how to better look after themselves. Given that the majority of the Matthew Talbot residents are actually there because of alcohol abuse, it would be terrific to see some of the money from the excise on beer going to solving some of the problems experienced by these men. As I said, there are a number of other services in my electorate. The Wayside Chapel is one that provides a drop-in centre and services for many people in the Kings Cross area. Many of these people are alcohol affected and have other problems such as mental illness, as well as illicit drug abuse. I would love to see the Wayside Chapel get an increase in its funding.St Vincent de Paul also provides a number of services. I was recently there to see the extension of Vincentian Village. Many of the people who lived in Vincentian Village are not alcohol abusers themselves but are people who are fleeing from home because of the alcohol abuse of other family members. It is well to remember that, when we are talking about the cost of alcohol abuse to the community, we are talking not just about the person who is the alcoholic but often about the extended family, including children, who are displaced and affected in so many ways throughout their entire lives by the alcohol abuse of their parents.We have the William Booth Institute, which is run by the Salvation Army and is a place that has a great success rate in dealing with some people who are incredibly hard-core users of legal and illegal drugs. Over the years I have known a number of people who have been through the William Booth Institute and are, I suppose you could say, successful graduates of the institute. Mission Australia has a number of services in my electorate, including Missionbeat, which is a service that allows people to phone up when they see someone who is very obviously alcohol affected and vulnerable to being beaten up, robbed, rolled or whatever. Missionbeat will come along and pick the person up, make sure that they are physically safe, that they are not choking on their own vomit and are not left to be attacked by people who make a habit of attacking people who, when they are very drunk, are vulnerable to physical assault. The Wesley Mission has Edward Eagar Lodge.These are just some of the services in my electorate that provide for people who are primarily alcohol abusers but often have other associated problems. These services deal with their homelessness, but they also deal with their substance abuse problems. I hope that some of this $115 million will actually go to people who are providing services on the ground, who have track records, who have experience in dealing with these problems. I hope that the money will not be spent on more of the door-to-door glossy advertising like the $23 million that was spent on the campaign to get parents to talk to their kids. I think that that has been singularly useless. (Time expired)18:15:0028594Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—A doctor in my electorate is fond of saying that if we could wipe the slate clean and start again, and we were deciding to legislate to make two drugs legal, it is unlikely that the two that we would choose would be tobacco and alcohol. This casual but informed observation is supported by Australian Institute of Health and Welfare statistics on drug use released in May 2001. Each year over 3,000 Australians die from harmful or hazardous consumption of alcohol. Cancer claims a third, followed by alcoholism and alcoholic liver cirrhosis—about 900—with a further 450 deaths caused by road and traffic accidents. As we know, in relation to road and traffic accidents, it is not only people who have been drinking who die; there are others who are affected by their irresponsibility or negligence. I concur with the comments of the member for Sydney that it is almost impossible to calculate the total cost to our community of alcohol and tobacco use. What we do know is that statistics compiled in 1996 tell us that the total economic cost of alcohol consumption to the Australian community annually is in excess of $4.5 billion. This costing was based on 1994 mortality and morbidity data and comprises $3.5 billion in tangible costs such as loss of workplace productivity and health care costs; and just under a further $1 billion in what The social cost of drug abuse reports describe as intangible costs, including the suffering imposed on the rest of the community. This does not mean that moderate use of alcohol is without its health benefits or its pleasures. I was pleased to read, for example, amongst the various official figures, that sensible use of alcohol may even improve the life prospects of many—mostly older—Australians.Alcohol is not our biggest drug problem. Each year over 19,000 Australians die from tobacco related illnesses. About 7,500 of these die from cancer, a further 3,750 from pulmonary disease, and approximately the same number from ischaemic heart disease. It is estimated that each year the loss of life through premature death from smoking totals the equivalent of a staggering 200,000 years. I note the comments of the member for Sydney about the increasing uptake rate of smoking amongst young women. Referring to some comments I made to this House yesterday, I wonder whether the increasing use of tobacco amongst young women is in part associated with appetite and weight control perceptions about tobacco.Just over 1,000 deaths annually are associated with illicit drug use—that is, the use of illicit substances—and the abuse of prescription drugs for non-medical purposes. About 23 per cent of Australians aged 14 and over use illicit drugs in any given year. Of the illicit drugs, the most popular is marijuana, accounting for about 40 per cent of illicit drug usage. As intelligently portrayed in the recent Four Corners program `Beneath the mirror ball', broadcast on 4 June, the use of ecstasy and similar designer drugs also appears to be on the rise. Further complicating matters, many Australians have multiple drug use problems. We know that, of those who reported that they had smoked tobacco recently, about 90 per cent had also consumed alcohol, while around two-fifths had recently used marijuana. To complete the picture, of the top 10 prescription medicines prescribed in 1998, three affected the central nervous system. Together these three drugs accounted for 32 per cent of the total number of scripts for the top 10 most frequently prescribed medicines. Of the drugs that affect the central nervous system, antidepressants were the most widely consumed.All of this tells us what we already know—that we live in an age where drugs and drug abuse are a fact of life. Of course, there is no such thing as `the drug problem'. What society faces is a series of complex and sometimes interrelated problems. Drug taking is often the end result of deeper unhappiness or distress within an individual. Governments, community groups, expert bodies and concerned individuals are clearly struggling to contain the effects of drug use and I would dare to suggest that, for all their efforts, we are still not adequately addressing the root causes of substance abuse.That said, one can understand that a number of community bodies have supported the generality of the proposal we are debating today. However, given the timing of their respective media releases, that support is for the commitment of further funding to prevent and control the harmful effects of alcohol abuse, not for the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Account Bill 2001, which we have before us today. Let me say that I share their hopes for what is proposed, even if the legislation we have before this House is inadequate in its present form. What they will not want to see is their efforts to address a very serious community problem tarnished by problems in the administration of the proposed scheme or the shortcomings of the proposed foundation. As we all know, the Constitution requires that this parliament should satisfy itself that money being appropriated for public purposes will be well spent. As previous speakers on this side have noted, what is fundamentally wrong with this bill is not that it arises out of an act of political compromise but that it provides so little reassurance to the parliament that the $115 million to be expended will be well used. The genesis of this bill is a textbook example of policy making on the run. The funds to support the proposed alcohol education and rehabilitation account and the proposed foundation became available because the government, in its rush to introduce its GST package, departed from the usual parliamentary practice for setting rates of excise duty on beer. New and higher excise rates on beer came into effect from 1 July 2000, even though it was unclear at the time that the necessary validating legislation would pass the Senate without amendment. In this House we have had cause before to talk about the GST cat. By April 2001 the excise cat was well and truly out of the bag. Beer drinkers around Australia felt that they were being comprehensively dudded, and both the government and their GST co-apologists, the Australian Democrats, were looking for somewhere to park the government's embarrassing beer excise windfall. What emerged was a face-saving attempt to create a memorandum of understanding between the coalition and the Democrats proposing the funding of a new and purportedly independent foundation which would, in ways yet to be specified—except in the very vaguest of generalities—deal with the problems of alcohol and licit substance abuse. We know that this attempt has not really met with ringing endorsement. I refer, for example, to the AMA's media release on budget health initiatives, which was entitled `Health Budget is all smoke and mirrors'. I think there is some cause for cynicism when we look at the rest of the government's initiatives in so-called education campaigns, particularly public education campaigns. We know that this government specialises in spending vast amounts of money on Teflon coated advertising and so-called `public education' campaigns where the specifics are not designed to stick in the public consciousness. All that is important from the coalition's perspective is the impression that, on the march-up to the next election, the government is `doing things'. One might also share the Democrats' apparent concern when the government initially suggests that, as part of the deal, it will set up a foundation with a board to be selected by the government. After all, this government has a great talent for board stacking: witness the ABC, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency. The memorandum of understanding was tabled in the other place on the urging of Senator Cook. The memorandum tries, without the input of relevant experts—including the drafting expertise of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel—to ensure that this government, which no-one trusts, can be held to account for how it administers this scheme. The problem is that this is no more than a private agreement between politicians. It is not legally enforceable and it cannot bind future governments. Allowing a small political party a direct say in selecting members of a board is quite bizarre and a pretty poor substitute for proper parliamentary oversight of the appointment process. Worse still, the proposed legislation only imperfectly reflects the terms of the memorandum and does not measure up to the standard accountability measures that are normally included in legislation establishing government funded bodies of the sort proposed here. If this legislation gets the attention that it deserves in another place, one would hope that these defects will be remedied. Speaking personally, I was also disappointed that the legislation neither requires nor encourages the proposed foundation to: look at alcohol related violence, including domestic violence; evaluate the effectiveness of existing laws and programs; and give appropriate support for state based measures, including the evaluation of carefully controlled trials and treatment programs. An example of that is the possible addition of vitamin B to alcoholic beverages to reduce the incidence of alcohol related brain injury. If the other place were to include standard regulation making powers in the bill, it might also encourage me to believe that the foundation will be `rigorously accountable' for its actions. The absence of the standard regulation making power suggests that this organisation will be operating on the basis of internal memos and unpublished guidelines, and not through an appropriate administrative framework where major initiatives and policy decisions are the subject of disallowable instruments scrutinised by this parliament. We simply fail any of those tests. A further cause for concern is how the government's proposal will mesh with other health policies and programs. Criticisms of the proposed national alcohol action plan by the Alcohol and Drugs Council of Australia suggest that the likely success of any new initiative may be prejudiced by what appears to be a fairly sorry record at the national level in recent years. The ADCA's September 2000 submission describes the government's GST package as failing to deliver an alcohol tax that is fair, equitable, easy to administer and health maximising. But the ADCA's lack of support for the government's record and policies on alcohol use and misuse does not stop there. The ADCA is critical of the lack of government accountability generally, noting that it does not state who is responsible for implementing policies or taking action, does not provide targets for harm reduction and does not allocate funding, or funding responsibilities, against specific actions. In the context of the present proposal promoting further spending on educative measures and publicity campaigns, the government might care to heed the ADCA's comment that what is required now is `a wider coverage of primary prevention strategies, not just information giving and awareness raising'. Further, the ADCA asserts that the proposed strategy on alcohol:... does not at present provide a strong enough link between the key action areas and strategies ... and those in other Action plans, particularly the National Action Plan on Illicit Drugs. Further, existing or proposed policies do not recognise that specific geographical areas throughout Australia require targeted strategies focusing on the role of communities. The member for Sydney outlined that in respect of her electorate. I would concur with those remarks about the need for local action in respect of my electorate, even though the problems facing my electorate are very different from the problems facing the electorate of the member for Sydney. Those reformulating the approach to the treatment of alcohol problems in the coming months should heed the concerns of the ADCA. Clearly, the funding to be made available does provide scope for improvement, but at the national level there is also much to be done in establishing priorities and resolving coordination problems. When this House resumes after the dinner suspension, it is my intention to address some of the local initiatives which are being used in my electorate to deal with the problem of substance abuse, whether that be of drugs that are legal or illegal. I believe that it is those sorts of local initiatives that really deserve funding under the bill that we are debating now. On that basis, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Bills28597R121128597Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (line 8), at the end of subsection (2A), add “, other than goods or classes of goods prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection”. (2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 16 (after line 23), after section 214AC, insert:214ACA Monitoring officer to notify occupier of premises of the occupier's rights and obligations Before exercising monitoring powers in respect of premises, a monitoring officer must give to the occupier of the premises a written notice setting out the occupier's rights and obligations under this Subdivision.(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 20 (line 30), at the end of subsection (2), add “if the occupier of the premises, or a representative previously nominated to Customs by the occupier, is unavailable to do so or absent from the premises”.(4) Schedule 1, item 20, page 25 (lines 21 and 22), omit subsection (6D).(5) Schedule 1, item 21, page 27 (lines 10 and 11), omit subsection (8).(6) Schedule 2, item 5, page 29 (lines 6 and 7), omit subsection 243SA(2).(7) Schedule 2, item 5, page 29 (lines 14 and 15), omit subsection 243SB(2).(8) Schedule 2, item 6, page 34 (line 6), omit “64AAA(9),”.(9) Schedule 2, item 6, page 34 (line 7), omit “99(2) or (3), 102A(4), 113(1), 114B(7), 114D(1),”, substitute “99(3), 102A(4), 113(1), 114B(7),”.(10) Schedule 2, item 6, page 34 (line 9), omit “126E(3), 126F(3), 243SA(1), 243SB(1),”.(11) Schedule 2, item 6, page 34 (after line 18), after section 243X, insert:243XA Guidelines for serving infringement notices (1) The CEO must develop written guidelines in respect of the administration of this Division to which he or she must have regard when exercising powers under this Division. (2) The guidelines are a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.(12) Schedule 3, item 1, page 39 (line 16) to page 40 (line 5), omit subsections 126D(2) and (3).(13) Schedule 3, item 1, page 40 (after line 5), after section 126D, insert:126DA Communications standards and operation (1) After consulting with persons likely to be affected, the CEO must determine, and cause to be published in the Gazette: (a) the information technology requirements that have to be met by persons who wish to communicate with Customs electronically; and (b) the action that a person has to take in order to verify the receipt of information communicated to Customs electronically; and (c) the information technology requirements that have to be met to satisfy a requirement that a person's signature be given to Customs in connection with information when the information is communicated electronically; and (d) the information technology requirements that have to be met to satisfy a requirement that a document be produced to Customs when the document is produced electronically. (2) The CEO may: (a) determine alternative information technology requirements that may be used; and (b) without limiting paragraph (a), determine different information technology requirements that may be used in different circumstances or by different classes of persons.(14) Schedule 3, item 1, page 41 (lines 1 and 2), omit subsection 126E(4).(15) Schedule 3, item 1, page 41 (lines 20 and 21), omit subsection 126F(4).(16) Schedule 3, item 38, page 65 (line 12), at the end of paragraph 71DF(b), add “or such other day of that month as is prescribed”.(17) Schedule 3, item 62, page 89 (lines 4 and 5), omit subsection (2).(18) Schedule 3, item 97, page 104 (line 20), omit “(2) or”.(19) Schedule 3, item 118, page 114 (lines 12 to 15), omit subsections (9) and (10).(20) Schedule 3, item 118, page 122 (line 11), omit subsection (3).20:00:0028599Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move: That the amendments be agreed to.As I remarked during the second reading debate on the Customs Legislation Amendment and Repeal (International Trade Modernisation) Bill 2001 some months ago, this bill represents the most significant customs reform since Federation. These reforms will provide benefits to business, government and the Australian community. The bill underpins cargo management re-engineering, CMR, which is intended to modernise cargo processes to improve efficiency in the movement of cargo and in earlier detection of high risk cargo. It is about the creation of an environment which is intended to reduce the costs of communication and to provide choice in how that communication occurs. It establishes an environment which relies on commercial information rather than something specifically created for government.In addition to creating a better business environment, the government also has a responsibility to protect the community from the threats posed by drugs, firearms and other dangerous goods. The bill therefore also provides improved mechanisms for the early identification and control of such goods. Its objectives are to intercept high risk cargo while allowing low risk cargo to flow unimpeded. Provision of timely and accurate information is fundamental to achieving rapid movement of cargo across our borders. For this reason, the bill supports good compliance through initiatives such as the accredited client program and associated administrative mechanisms. At the other end of the scale, it also provides necessary censure for noncompliance through strict liability offences.The bill also proposes the replacement of Customs current commercial auditing powers with contemporary monitoring powers. These powers, along with new record keeping obligations, will apply to communicators of information to Customs as well as to the owners of imported and exported goods. This extension acknowledges that the accuracy of trade data is vital in a self-assessment scheme that has the objective of intercepting high risk cargo while allowing low risk cargo to flow unimpeded. The new powers are more consistent with the preferred model for monitoring compliance with Commonwealth laws by ensuring that entry to premises is only by consent or under a warrant.Every aspect of this bill has been the subject of intensive scrutiny by the Senate through its committees and the Senate itself during debate of the bill last week. The Senate amendments are the result of this scrutiny, and the government acknowledges that the major proposals in this bill have been enhanced by these amendments. The two government amendments address concerns raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee.The first is an amendment to require a monitoring officer, before exercising monitoring powers, to give to an occupier of premises written notice setting out the occupier's rights and obligations under new subdivision J of division 1 of part XII of the Customs Act 1901. The second is an amendment requiring the chief executive officer of Customs to make and have regard to guidelines for the administration of the infringement notice scheme for strict liability offences in division 5 of part XIII of the Customs Act 1901. The guidelines will be a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and therefore subject to the scrutiny of parliament.Thirteen of the amendments—six opposition and seven Democrat—relate to the removal of strict liability from 10 offences and the application of the infringement notice provisions to those offences. The government does not oppose these amendments as the undesirable conduct that constitutes the physical element of each of the offences will remain prohibited, but a fault element will now also need to be proved in any prosecution.I note that the Senate resolved that strict liability was appropriate for the other 29 offences in the bill. These offences fall within two broad categories. The first of these categories relates to offences that the government considers critical to community and revenue protection objectives. These offences relate to failure to meet regulatory obligations considered necessary for Customs to identify potential risks to the Australian community as soon as possible. Early and accurate information is critical in that regard and that objective should not be dependent on the intent of the provider of information. The second relates to offences that are simply the translation of existing Customs Act offences that are currently understood to be strict liability. All that the bill is doing is specifying that strict liability does apply, as required by the Criminal Code. The Democrats also moved amendments that will, firstly, allow a day, other than the first day of the month, to be prescribed in the regulations for accredited clients to lodge their monthly returns with Customs. (Extension of time granted) Secondly, the Democrats' amendments will ensure that the requirement to answer questions when monitoring powers are being exercised under a warrant applies only to lower level employees if the occupier of the premises, or a representative nominated by the occupier, is unavailable to answer questions or is absent from the premises. Finally, the amendments will allow exceptions to be specified in the regulations so that goods such as personal use pharmaceutical drugs are exempt from the new requirement for all export goods requiring a permit to be entered.The government will not oppose any of these amendments as they either clarify the intended operation of the provisions in the bill or allow flexibility by providing Customs with the ability to adjust its operation in certain circumstances by the use of regulations. The final amendment in the bill is an opposition amendment that requires the chief executive officer of Customs to consult with persons likely to be affected before publishing in the Gazette the information technology requirements that have to be met to conduct business with Customs electronically. Once again, the government is happy to accept this amendment as it reflects the intention of Customs to undertake such consultation before gazetting the information technology requirements. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills28600R133628600Debate resumed.20:07:0028600Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—Prior to the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Account Bill 2001 being adjourned for the House's consideration, I had addressed a number of remarks to the dimensions of the licit drug problem in our society—that is, the problem with alcohol, tobacco and various prescribed drugs. I had also expressed some grave reservations about the matters dealt with in the bill, particularly the structure of the foundation. I noted that the transparency and accountability provisions in relation to this foundation are not what one would have wanted and I noted that the whole momentum for this bill has been as a result of a deal done on the run between the government and their co-conspirators in the GST package, the Democrats, because of the problems caused by the beer excise issue. So, instead of having the accountability and transparency that we would have liked in this bill, we have a memorandum of understanding between two political parties and the politicians within those parties which has no status, no legal enforceability and no ability to bind any incoming government.I then suggested that the appropriate use of the funds dealt with under this bill would be to resource local initiatives that have a great deal of community support and that are likely, at a local level, to address the problems that those communities face. I indicated to the House prior to the adjournment of this matter that, for example, my electorate faces very different issues in terms of substance abuse than does, say, the electorate of the member for Sydney, who spoke before me, and I suspect very different drug issues from those in the electorate of the member for the Northern Territory, who will speak after me.In the electorate I represent we have seen many promising initiatives run as part of the Wyndham Substance Abuse Strategic Plan. Wyndham is one of the municipalities within the electorate I represent. This plan has developed from a substance abuse forum initiated by Mary Gillett, the state member for Werribee. My congratulations go to her in commencing the local discussion which led to the initiative of the Wyndham Substance Abuse Strategic Plan. Under the auspices of the strategic plan we have already seen the following very important projects commenced. There is a chroming awareness project—chroming is a very big issue in my electorate and an awareness project has been commenced in relation to it. Hobsons Bay, part of which is within my electorate, is a municipality adjacent to Wyndham, and the Wyndham and Hobsons Bay assessment and referral project deals with coordination of services across the two municipalities. There is a project designed to minimise drug related violence, and programs to develop peer and mentor understanding to build community resilience. The Wyndham City Council has obtained funding from both the relevant state department and the Werribee Mercy Hospital, which is the only hospital in my electorate, to develop better ways of tackling these and other issues with the help of the local community. The council has also contributed directly to the project through the provision of office space, administrative resources and professional support. The main problem, of course, is not a lack of ideas. I have a list of 14 priority areas that the local community has identified as needing attention. What it is short of is not ideas but funding. When hardworking, dedicated community groups and those in local government, who also work hard to represent their constituencies, see the Commonwealth splashing about funding of the order of $115 million, albeit over five years, they are entitled to an assurance that the money will be spent wisely on programs that will make a difference. It would be simply heartbreaking for these people to see money being expended on nationally sponsored projects, like advertising campaigns, that do not help local communities and might not even attract the support of respected bodies like the ADCA.Governments without widespread community support are able to neither control nor much less eradicate the drug problem. This problem is beyond the dimensions of government in and of itself to make much of a difference too. Parliaments, with the best will in the world—this parliament included—are not able to wipe the slate clean and start again as if we did not have a drug problem in our society, much as we all might like to. We can only appropriate taxpayers' funds and harness reserves of goodwill in the community to tackle the worst effects of illicit and licit drug usage by trying to reduce the damage caused by all forms of drug abuse. In doing so, good intentions are not enough. Sloppy legislation and private deals simply are not going to make a practical or lasting difference to people's lives.20:13:0028601Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—Firstly, let me say how much I concur with the words of my colleague the member for Lalor. They are very much in accord with the views I hold on the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Account Bill 2001. I note from the contributions made by my colleagues from the Labor side of the House that each of them has raised our concerns about the reasons why this legislation appears in the first place—another broken promise by the Howard government, this time in relation to tax on beer—and then the need for him and the government to climb down from the preposterous position they had put themselves in and to want to distribute, correctly so, $110 million over four years, being the sum of the taxes which were raised.We know that the bill does not establish the proposed Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation Ltd, which will be a private company with directors selected—as the member for Lalor pointed out—by the Democrats and the coalition as a result of a cosy deal between those two parties. That is not an appropriate way to appoint such a foundation.The bill does not spell out in any detail the formal content of the funding agreements, although it does contain an object clause which spells out that the foundation is required to expend the money on `one or more' of the general purposes it lists. Fixed amounts totalling $115 million will be paid into the account over four years starting on the day the bill receives royal assent when $10 million will be paid into the account. The minister has the power to terminate an agreement if the objectives of the foundation are inconsistent with the object section of the bill or the foundation fails to comply with the condition. This power is a disallowable instrument, one would presume to prevent the minister terminating the agreement without the support of the Senate—a safeguard for the Democrats. If the agreement is terminated, the minister may enter into new agreements with replacement bodies. The only accountability provision is the requirement that all funding agreements be tabled in parliament within 15 days. This parliament has heard this afternoon Labor's concerns about the constitution of the foundation, the foundation's membership, the funding arrangements and interest which will accrue, the business plan, the method of reporting to parliament, the auditing arrangements and the desirability of a statutory foundation. I will come back to those points, if I have time, at the end of my remarks. Clause 3 of the bill states that the object of the legislation is to provide an amount of money to be expended on one or more of the following:(a) to prevent alcohol and other licit substance abuse, including petrol sniffing, particularly among vulnerable population groups such as indigenous Australians and youth;(b) to support evidence-based alcohol and other licit substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation, research and prevention programs;(c) to promote community education encouraging responsible consumption of alcohol and highlighting the dangers of licit substance abuse;(d) to promote public awareness of the work of the Foundation or body and raise funds from the private sector for the ongoing work of the Foundation or body;(e) to provide funding grants to organisations with appropriate community linkages to deliver the services referred to in the above paragraphs.Being cognisant of the purposes the funding is to be directed at outlined in 3(a) to 3(e), I want to pay particular attention to my own electorate of the Northern Territory and, within that framework, address a couple of issues. First, while I am pleased that there is a specific allocation of resources of at least 20 per cent of the total expenditure to be targeted to indigenous Australians, I am concerned that there is absolutely no guarantee that, after the first year, those funds will flow. That is a worry. But, when contemplating this issue, I understand why we should be concentrating resources in this area because of my own experience and observations within Northern Australia. It is worth pointing out that, according to recent statistics, the Northern Territory has the worst record on drug abuse in Australia—and that is across the board. While I intend to concentrate my remarks on issues such as petrol sniffing and alcohol consumption—and what flows from that in terms of domestic violence—I do want to ensure that the House understands that the view that somehow or other drug abuse is endemic in indigenous communities and not in non-indigenous communities and that alcohol consumption is endemic in indigenous communities and not in non-indigenous communities needs to be debunked here and now.I say that because I am conscious of the debate which has been fermenting over the last couple of weeks over issues related to violence, particularly against women, in indigenous communities. There was a very interesting article in today's Sydney Morning Herald by Stan Grant headed `Spare us the white man's concern for Aborigines'. I commend the article to people because, while I do not agree with all of its content, it does raise significant issues about the nature of the current debate of, in this instance, violence in Aboriginal communities. It raises particular alarm bells in my mind about the way in which indigenous Australians are being typecast not only by the media but also by certain political elements within the community. It is worth noting that alcohol consumption is a severe problem in Northern Australia. Of that, there is no doubt. It is a particular problem in the Northern Territory where, I understand, alcohol consumption rates are the highest in the Western world. In Central Australia, the annual consumption of alcohol is 16.4 litres, which is some 70 per cent above the national average. That is of concern to me and I know it is of concern to many people. But we also know that consumption levels across the population are higher than the national average. Amongst non-indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory, alcohol consumption is 50 per cent above the national average—80 per cent of non-indigenous people in the Northern Territory are drinkers. Significantly, only 50 per cent of indigenous Territorians are drinkers. I have some figures here from a national health survey of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. These are old figures; nevertheless, I think they are relevant. They refer to alcohol consumption by risk levels across all age groups across the indigenous and non-indigenous communities across Australia. Significantly, in the period of this survey almost 51 per cent of indigenous Australians did not consume alcohol. For non-indigenous Australians the figure is 44.5 per cent. So across Australia there is a significant difference between the alcohol consumption of indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. Non-indigenous Australians are more liable to consume alcohol than are indigenous Australians. If you go across the age groups and look at, say, the age group of 55 and over, you will see that 79.2 per cent of indigenous Australians did not consume alcohol whilst only 52 per cent of non-indigenous Australians do not consume alcohol.It is about time we put to rest some of the furphies that are out there in the community about the asserted fact that, somehow or other, this issue of alcohol abuse is only appropriately discussed in the context of indigenous Australians when it is really a problem also for non-indigenous Australians, just as alcohol consumption and violence perpetrated against women and children in particular is an issue about which we should all be concerned. It is an issue that is relevant to not only indigenous Australians but also non-indigenous Australians.Where I live, in Central Australia, the obvious manifestation of indigenous drinking is outside. In Alice Springs, indigenous visitors to the town, Aboriginal people from various communities, often are seen drinking in public places, and I must say that it is not a sight which appeals to the general community. But, if you bear in mind what I said initially about the high consumption levels of alcohol in the Northern Territory amongst non-indigenous Australians, if non-indigenous Australians are not drinking in the street they are drinking somewhere else. I have seen violence, indigenous persons against indigenous persons, in the street and elsewhere in the Northern Territory, and I have seen violence from indigenous men against indigenous women and indigenous children. There is a public manifestation of it. But what happens behind the closed doors of non-indigenous Australians? How bad is the issue of family abuse as a result of alcohol consumption and other substance abuse? Let us get this debate into perspective.Whilst I condemn absolutely—to my last breath I will condemn this—people who perpetrate violence against women and children, in particular, under the guise of being affected by alcohol, I also condemn those people who, for whatever reason, have over recent times started to use the media as a way to persecute and prosecute cases against individual Aboriginal people. In the Senate last night we had Senator Heffernan use privilege to make allegations that Mr Terry O'Shane, formerly an ATSIC commissioner, someone whom I have known for many years, abused members of Evelyn Scott's family. I know for a fact that Senator Heffernan did not attempt to test the allegations. I know for a fact that Senator Heffernan did not bother to ring Terry O'Shane and ask him what his response to these allegations would be. Had he done so, he would have found out, as I have found out subsequently, that these allegations, so-called, have been out for some years.At the time these allegations were first raised it was suggested that those people making the allegations should make them to the police and have them properly investigated. That has not happened. Yet we have seen in the other chamber the Parliamentary Secretary to Cabinet, Senator Heffernan, undermine the civil liberties of a person who faces no charges and where there are no substantive allegations. Let me repeat: I will neither defend nor seek to defend any person who creates an issue through sexual abuse of women or children. That sort of violence is not only incomprehensible to me but also something that I do not believe this community will tolerate, and it ought not to tolerate it. But the community should not tolerate the abuse of civil liberties in the way in which civil liberties are being abused currently in this country by people such as Senator Heffernan and others who are using the media to prosecute allegations—in this case without substance, because no substantive allegations have been made—and have trial by media rather than have the allegations investigated properly by the justice system. In the many years that I have spent working and living in Northern Australia I have observed a number of things which we as a community need to address. It is significant that on this issue of alcohol consumption and the abuse of children and families there is now a debate that we ought to be having about the importance of protecting all families, but I note with interest that again there seems to be a concentration on the question of family abuse in the Aboriginal community. I have no doubt at all that the people who are discussing these issues from the indigenous community are well motivated and believe sincerely that they are right in what they are doing. And I have no doubt that many of the issues which they are raising about their own communities are correct, just as I know that they would like to have the resources to address the issues in a way which they feel is appropriate. Over recent days I have heard people commentating about the need for ATSIC to somehow or other take control of this whole situation. It is perhaps significant that from 1996 there was a cut in ATSIC's budget of $470 million over four years. One of the first programs which ATSIC was forced to cut was women's centres in communities.There is absolutely no question in my mind of the strength of Aboriginal communities in Northern Australia—absolutely no question—just as there is no factual doubt that a large proportion of Aboriginal communities do not tolerate alcohol or any other substance abuse. But where there is substance abuse these communities have sought mechanisms to address those issues and been given little assistance by government. Governments have traditionally and, I might say, methodically said that it is not their responsibility; it is ATSIC's responsibility. It is not just ATSIC's responsibility. The fact of the matter is that these are community responsibilities. We have to accept an obligation as a community to focus our attention on remedies to these issues which come through the Aboriginal community and over which they have some control.It is important that we use this $110 million over four years appropriately, and I am pleased that 20 per cent is going to be allocated, so we hear, over the first 12 months—let us hope it is for four years. But let us ensure that the money is devoted to projects which are designed, controlled and owned by Aboriginal Australians where they are to do with Aboriginal Australians. Let us not forget, as I indicated earlier, that these are issues which not only impinge on indigenous Australians but are important for all Australians. Instead of highlighting, as some have done, one section of our community, we need to accept that we have a responsibility as a community, as a nation, to address issues of substance abuse for all Australians. However, I am concerned that, while I have not got time to address all those lifestyle issues which go towards making these communities—where there are 25 people living in a house, for example—these are issues which need to be addressed. (Time expired)20:33:0028604McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—I thank the member for Burke for his cooperation in allowing me to jump the queue. The Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Account Bill 2001 which we are addressing is part of the implementation of the agreement struck between the government and the Australian Democrats as a consequence of the Senate rejection of the proposed increase in beer taxation when the GST commenced. I want to deal with the bill a little directly, but I want to deal particularly, as the member for the Northern Territory did, with what is not in the bill. Sometimes when you are discussing a bill the most important element of a critique of it is not to criticise what is in it but to focus on what is not in it.The Labor Party were among the first to advocate that this excessive tax take that was a result of the government's broken election promise concerning the GST and beer should be put through a foundation, and this remains our view. My colleague the member for Jagajaga and others have outlined a very effective critique of the arrangements for the foundation but not of the fundamental idea—the fundamental idea is still something that we support. While this is not in my particular area of responsibility, which relates to the matters raised by the member for the Northern Territory concerning domestic violence due to alcohol, substance abuse and other causes in indigenous communities, if I get time I would like to return to some of those critiques of the bill more broadly. When we in the opposition, in the Labor Party, were advocating that the money that is surplus in beer excise collected during 2000-01 be put into this foundation, we suggested that it should be put into programs which promoted responsible drinking patterns, research and treatment of alcoholism, and support for community partnership programs related to alcohol education. But we also said that we wanted the money put into the reduction of domestic violence due to alcohol and substance abuse in indigenous communities.A lot of these recommendations have been picked up in the agreement between the Democrats and the government and are in this bill. The domestic violence suggestion has not been picked up. I think that is a grave flaw—not one for us to play with in the usual parliamentary cross-chamber criticism of each other but one I genuinely ask the government to reconsider. I am not seeking to take partisan advantage of the awful circumstances that have arisen in recent times with the spate of publicity and controversy concerning allegations against indigenous leaders. I eschew that option, and I will continue to do so. What I want to do is ask the government to reconsider this matter.I am not proposing an amendment. I not proposing that Labor get up here or in the Senate and challenge this bill and to try to score a point here and there or force a vote here and there. That is easy to do—any experienced member of this chamber could do it in five minutes. I am just saying this to the government: why not go away and reconsider this proposition? What you have done about providing some of this money for programs for indigenous communities, we support. However, we are concerned that there is no specific reference to spending on programs addressing the interrelated effects of alcohol and domestic violence. It was evident before that this was necessary but, if anybody could not see it, they must know it now. There is no excuse for now not realising that we have a profoundly important issue before us and a unique opportunity to act in a bipartisan way, and in a way that will get the unanimous support of this House and virtually the unanimous support of the entire parliament, if the government is prepared to make that change. One of the organisational adages of politics is: turn adversity to advantage. We have very adverse circumstances before us in terms of the controversy, the allegation upon allegation, the stories of domestic violence and child abuse in indigenous communities. They are not new stories in that we have known for a long time that there is a big problem of domestic violence and child abuse in the Australian community as a whole and, more is the pity, disproportionately in indigenous communities. But if we must put up with this flare-up of publicity and acrimony, and suffer the consequences in the indigenous communities of the division, conflict and argument that follow, let us take advantage of that opportunity to mobilise community support to confront this issue. It is overdue that we confront it. It is not easy, but I want to say this again to the government, genuinely and without any rancour or partisanship: please reconsider your decision not to include funding of domestic violence programs through this foundation. I am not sure why you made that decision; you may have thought you had good reasons at the time and perhaps you did, but the circumstances have changed. Please reconsider your position. We proposed this specification in our original comments and we continue to think that it is a requirement.Obviously issues of violence, particularly as they relate to the indigenous community, have saturated news coverage over the past couple of weeks. Family and domestic violence is a fundamentally important issue in every community in Australia, including in indigenous communities. We have heard much over the past two weeks through the media about allegations of violence and abuse within the indigenous leadership. Such accusations are serious, and I will never accept that we should cast a veil of secrecy over such allegations or that we should lightly disparage the allegations made by people who come forward claiming stories of abuse. That is not to say that every claim should be accepted as true. The people against whom the claims are made are entitled to a presumption of innocence, and some of them may well be innocent. People whom I respect certainly say to me that they think some of those people are innocent. But it is not an easy thing for a woman to come forward and say, `I've been raped.' It is a very hard thing for women to whom that has happened to come forward and speak out. For us to make it any harder in future for people who suffer those assaults to come forward is to do a grave disservice to the whole community, not just to women in the indigenous community. I want to pick up on a couple of themes, but one in particular mentioned by the member for the Northern Territory. We continue to hear that it is ATSIC at fault; ATSIC has not done enough about domestic violence. There are two screamingly obvious reasons why that argument is not only wrong but also distasteful. One is that the government forced ATSIC to make cuts in this area. We had a sadly disingenuous press release from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs today claiming that the cuts to the programs to support women and children who were the victims of domestic violence were made by ATSIC. Of course they were made by ATSIC—because the government cut $100 million-plus from their budget and quarantined all the other areas of activity from their cuts. What did they expect them to do? They had to cut their remaining programs, and that included the domestic violence programs. The government cannot deny responsibility for that.But that is past. Other than having been approached for the facts by journalists, I have not sought to take advantage of that. That is the past. I was disappointed by the disingenuous response of the parliamentary secretary, but the real reason why that is so distasteful is more serious. This is not a matter that should be left to ATSIC. These women and children are Australians. They deserve the support that every Australian woman and child is entitled to when they seek support in times of child abuse, domestic violence and family crisis. It is not a special problem that ATSIC ought to fund because they are Aboriginal women. They are Australians. They do not become less Australians because they are indigenous Australians. How can it be that we think that the community that suffers this scourge more than any other is the one for whom the indigenous agencies and not the whole community should take responsibility? We really have to say that the women and children in greatest need in our community deserve our support. Through this bill, we have the capacity to provide it and we must do so. That brings me to the other sad and disappointing matter that the member for the Northern Territory raised in his remarks. I refer to the abuse of privilege in the Senate last night by the Parliamentary Secretary to Cabinet. I have no idea whether the Prime Minister was aware that his parliamentary secretary was going to make the remarks he did. I will never be able to find out, so it does not matter. He is very senior and, we all know, influential beyond his title. I cannot imagine how anybody could think that proper consideration of serious issues surrounding sexual violence and child abuse could possibly be advanced by using parliamentary privilege to undermine the rights of Australians to the protection of the courts. This is a serious matter which deserves our sober and serious consideration. It is a matter about which many Australians, including, to the best of my knowledge, Senator Heffernan, care profoundly. It is an issue on which a lot of people look to this parliament for leadership and support for the work they have done, the research they have undertaken and the recommendations they have put before us. It is very sad that Senator Heffernan chose to use parliamentary privilege, a right for which we in parliament argue and for which I will always argue—it is fundamental to our democracy—but its support in the community depends upon its proper use. When it is improperly used, it undermines community support for that important democratic right and therefore I find it very sad. Let me turn to some more positive things about that important question. Reconciliation Australia today made a call for all parties to work together to address the serious issue of family violence and sexual abuse in indigenous communities. I endorse their call. I met last night with the co-chair, Fred Chaney, and the senior board member, Jackie Huggins, who in a press conference today made that call on behalf of Reconciliation Australia. I told them last night that they had the full support of the opposition in that proposition and I urged them to go further. I think that Reconciliation Australia could have a role to play in establishing a neutral ground on which this issue can be discussed in the community—not necessarily in the public eye but in the suburbs, country towns and communities of our nation. We need to have this discussion and we need to open up the debate. I hope that Reconciliation Australia will see its way clear and receive support from the government to advance debate around this issue of domestic violence, sexual and child abuse. Solutions to these issues of rape, domestic violence and other forms of violence in indigenous communities must have bipartisan support. I have made our offer clear—I repeated it in a press release today—and I repeat now our support for the government if they choose to take measures. I hope they might use this bill as an early opportunity to do so. I hope that the current media focus on rape and violence in indigenous communities will lead to a commitment from us all—government, opposition and the wider community—to look seriously at addressing these issues. Violence and abuse within indigenous communities are serious issues that cannot be swept under the carpet. We all have to face up to it. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between alcohol, drug abuse and violence. The Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, in a report commissioned by the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, summarised the impact of alcohol very powerfully. The council said:Aboriginal alcohol misuse has a devastating effect on family life by precipitating domestic violence and sexual abuse;Widespread alcohol misuse by parents and other Aboriginal adults provides strong negative role models of drinking and parenting behaviour for children;The misuse of alcohol has damaging effects on Aboriginal life in the social and cultural spheres. For example heavy drinking has been linked to the neglect of important ceremonies in Traditional Communities; andAlthough alcohol is not the only cause of family and community disruption, it is seen as a primary cause by many Aboriginal people.The consultative process for what has been commonly referred to as the Boni Robertson report, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Task Force on Violence report, advanced alcohol as the most pressing concern of indigenous people. Of the 43 submissions received from individuals and various agencies, 91 per cent of the overall submissions and 100 per cent of those from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and organisations cited alcohol and other drugs as major factors for attention if the issue of violence is to be addressed successfully.The report comprised many recommendations which clearly showed that effective implementation of these recommendations will require intra- or inter-governmental coordination. Importantly, if the problem of violence is to be addressed successfully, many of the issues will require the cooperation and commitment of all three levels of government with indigenous communities. Community members themselves must also take responsibility for tackling the violence and abuse that is happening in their communities via grassroots activities and in cooperation with government. Of course alcohol and drug abuse alone is not the sole cause of domestic violence in indigenous communities. It is another symptom of the historical legacy of dispossession, removal and social and economic disadvantage. It is a symptom of trauma and intergenerational effect. These factors have been revealed in various reports, such as the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody report and Bringing them home: The report of the national inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their parents. But we cannot tackle violence and abuse in any community—let alone in indigenous communities—in isolation from other causes and symptoms of dysfunction. I look forward to a renewed commitment from the government to address family violence in indigenous communities and indicate that I am prepared to work with the government, Reconciliation Australia and indigenous peoples to work towards solutions to these tragic problems. There is no doubt that there would be widespread community support for programs targeted at this serious problem in indigenous communities.We all need to be prepared to pay for our fair share of the cost to deal with this issue and its consequences. I urge the government to reconsider its position on this matter. It is not too late. It will not suffer loss of face or humiliation. It will be welcomed widely, including by the opposition. I hope the government takes that opportunity.20:53:0028608O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—Before beginning my contribution to this discussion, I would like to pick up on a couple of comments made by the member for the Northern Territory. I assure him that the point he makes about the issues of alcoholism and domestic violence being more than those for just indigenous Australia and that the same problems exist behind the closed doors of the rest of Australia is an unequivocal and unchallengeable statement. He should rest assured that he has the support of politicians all over Australia—and particularly on this side of the House—to address those issues and give proper recognition to the problem. I also want to say a couple of words about what was said by the member for Fraser about Senator Heffernan's comments in the Senate last night, because I do not think it was such a surprise to see Senator Heffernan leap in in this way. I remember very clearly the strategy run by the now government in rural and regional Australia in the lead-up to the 1996 election. You have to be a country politician—like you, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, the member for the Northern Territory or me—to actually know what gets said in the halls or on the country radio stations, away from the ears of suburban people. Among several very clear themes were two very specific themes which were run in the lead-up to the 1996 election by members of the then opposition, now the government. They were two themes which, to my mind, shall forever be part of a political disgrace in this nation. One of them was Asianisation of Australia—that nice little slogan and everything that it accompanies—and the other was the term `Aboriginal industry' and everything that that entails. And what does it entail? It entails reinforcing among white middle-class voters every possible negative perception that they could have about indigenous people. That strategy was run word for word, line for line, researched and practised, for at least six to nine months in the lead-up to the 1996 election. It comes as no surprise to me to see a Liberal senator seize on an issue that does exactly that—reinforce negative perceptions of indigenous people among middle-class Australia. And guess what? It has happened in the lead-up to the Aston by-election.I might be drawing a long bow and I will be interested to see what Senator Heffernan has to say, but I will never forget those lines that were run. No-one in this chamber should ever forget that the former member for Oxley, Ms Pauline Hanson, was in fact a member of the Liberal Party in Brisbane and a candidate for the Liberal Party in Brisbane just prior to the 1996 election. What went wrong there was that she actually let it rip in Brisbane. That is when it became an embarrassment for the Prime Minister and that is when he had to unload her. So it comes as no surprise to me that this has emerged in the way that it has at the moment. I make those comments in no way making any judgments or quality or merit statements about what has been raised or how it has been raised—that is a matter for others to work their way through. But I do not think it was an accident that a Liberal senator leapt on the issue yesterday. Let us see where it goes from here. In relation to theAlcohol Education and Rehabilitation Account Bill 2001, our previous speakers have made known the position of the opposition. We are supportive of the legislation as such but we are bringing forward proposals which give definition to the foundation: what its objectives are and who its personnel shall be. I want to use the little time available to me to talk about three specific issues relating to the broad concept of alcohol education and rehabilitation, which of course is the thrust of what is going on here with the use of this excise funding. First of all, it is clearly intended that there will be more effort put into the issue of alcohol abuse and, as it is further defined, certainly among young people.I want to recount to the parliament the sad tale of a young 15-year-old boy—his name can now be used in this parliament—who died in Melton, which is in my electorate, two years ago. It now appears, from what the coroner has said in the last week or so, that the boy bought from the shelves of the supermarket essence which was heavily laden with alcohol but which was not described as such, because of the poor labelling laws. The coroner has now deemed that that alcohol that was obtained from the supermarket shelves—not from the licensed section but from the ordinary supermarket shelves—was the major factor in the death of this young boy, Leigh Clark. His father wrote to me not long after the event, raising the fact that people could buy off the supermarket shelves essences which were highly alcoholic, and that the labelling laws and the laws covering description of product and what could or could not be on a shelf seemed to have missed these particular products.In September 1999, the Minister for Health and Aged Care answered a question in question time on the issue and appeared to be moving into action. He appeared to be using federal authority to try and drive some solutions. He was focusing particularly on changes to the tax laws, working on the premise that, if these products were taxed properly and treated as an alcoholic beverage, the price would go up and consumption would therefore be more difficult for young people. Make whatever judgments you like about that assumption, but that was the minister's assumption. The second pathway he was proposing to go down was to toughen up the labelling laws so that they properly described the product and identified the amount of alcohol in the product.In June last year, I placed a question on notice to the minister. As I raised with the Speaker under standing order 150 last week in the parliament, that question still remains unanswered. I did, however, receive a written response from the minister to a separate letter on 16 October last year in which he outlined to me that there seemed to be progress with ANZFA and the food labelling laws and that changes would be made. On 7 December last year, the changes were gazetted and the provisions became law. These essence products had to be properly labelled to identify the percentage of alcohol contained in them. That gazettal on 7 December provided for a six-month introduction period for the manufacturers, or providers, to comply with the law.The Clark family in Melton have followed this issue with the sort of attention that you would expect from parents who believe that their son should not have died, and certainly should not have died from the effects of alcohol purchased from a supermarket where it was on display as an openly available product. On the day of implementation of this legislation, they went to two supermarkets in Melton and bought two more bottles of this essence. After it had been prescribed by law for six months—and the supermarkets and manufacturers had been given six months to comply—the day after D Day, they went to two different supermarkets and purchased the product from the shelves.With some reluctance, they have now gone to the Victorian authorities and have lodged a formal complaint against the retailers. They had hoped that the matter was over. They had hoped that the assurances given by Dr Wooldridge as far back as September 1999 would have come into effect and would have happened in the supermarket. Mr Clark wrote to me last week telling me that they had lodged this complaint. I call on Dr Wooldridge to discuss the matter with the Victorian authorities and ensure that the assurances he gave to this parliament two years ago actually happen on the street. I do not care, quite frankly, if he never gets around to answering the question on notice from me. I just want to see him make it happen, because this family have been through a terrible trauma. They do not deserve to have all this happen and then find that the problem still has not been solved. The second issue I want to raise relating to this legislation is that of alcohol education, particularly among young people and young drivers. I hope that the foundation, when it works through what will be its target areas, understands one thing—that is, when Labor left office in 1996 there was an organisation in place called the Federal Office of Road Safety within the Department of Transport. It was specifically funded to provide a coordination and leadership role in the national road safety strategy and it was working cooperatively and highly successfully with the various state authorities. There was research on young driver education, particularly alcohol related driving, following the period when young drivers were no longer required to display P plates and to observe the zero alcohol requirement. Some problems were clearly identified because they were inexperienced drivers—with any alcohol in the system. But big progress was being made. The road toll had come down dramatically, and the road toll among young drivers had come down—with an concerted and comprehensive national strategy in cooperation with the states and allowing them plenty of leadership. In the cuts of 1996, that was one of the areas that was hit and, as I understand it, the Federal Office of Road Safety no longer exists. Certainly that leadership and coordinating role that the federal government played no longer exists.In Melbourne yesterday the Herald Sun ran a huge feature, one of the largest I have seen them run for a long time, on the increasing incidence of deaths of young drivers, and called for the politicians to do something about it. I do not lay all of the blame on the government—and laying blame does not really matter much—but the fact of the matter is that this is another one of those stupid decisions of 1996 and since. How could a national transport minister believe he was doing the job when walking away from a role in national road safety and walking away from a role in alcohol education among young drivers? How a federal transport minister could think he was doing the job while conducting a portfolio in that way is beyond my comprehension; but that is where we are at. It is an issue that I hope the foundation will take note of when it comes to look at how these funds should be spent.The final point I want to make is this. The member for Fraser made the point in his opening contribution that often a bill says as much in what it does not say as in what it does specify. Because these funds are specifically related to education and rehabilitation in relation to licit drugs, of course the bill does not have, and the foundation will not have, a brief to canvass the issue of illicit drugs. But I would hope in this last couple of minutes for some scope to touch on another area of national drug policy which I think has to be addressed by this parliament. I do not care who does it, whether it is the foundation or not, but nobody is going to be able to walk away from it. A recent statement issued by the Prime Minister's national drug advisory council pointed to, among other things, the need for an `alternative strategy'—I think those were the words. In a speech that I made to the Australian Parliamentary Drug Law Reform Group in April 1999, I opened with these words:In May 1989 the federal parliamentary committee which oversees the National Crime Authority concluded in the report Drugs, crime and society that `it is time to consider alternatives to present policy'.That was in May 1989. The committee most likely to defend the status quo was in fact conceding 13 years ago that Australia had lost the prohibition battle against illicit drugs. I was a member of that committee for six years, and those words represented a hard-won compromise between those who wanted a new approach and those who believed that another injection of police powers and resources would do the trick. In the event, the recommendation was ignored, and we are even further in the mire now. The only real development in this field occurred in the last few months of the former Labor government. In November-December 1995, the ACT government wanted to proceed with a heroin trial but could not do so without the approval of the federal government—and that is still the situation. The former Labor government made the decision to allow that to happen. I, for one, believed that would be a major step forward in an intelligent approach to this problem in Australia. However, the 1996 election intervened and the Prime Minister stepped in with a completely different position, and we have all regressed. We have seen the New South Wales government go through an extraordinarily difficult process to move a slight step along the scale—but I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker Crosio, share the same view as I do about that.We now have the Prime Minister's own national drug advisory council telling him that he has to give a heroin trial a go but he is still saying, `No, it is not the right thing. It is not the way to go.' I am pleased that the Labor Party in its drug strategy has made provision to approve a heroin trial and, hopefully, when we win office one of the states will want to give it a try. I hope so, because I believe that, for a whole range of reasons, it is the next step forward. To summarise, I call on the health minister to make sure the essences are not available to kids in the supermarket any longer. I call on the government to get back into education for roads. (Time expired)21:13:0028611Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Account Bill 2001. As has been already outlined, the bill sets up the special account through which to direct funds to the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation. The major focus of this foundation will be to prevent alcohol and other licit substance abuse, through the provision of grants to organisations with community linkages. I therefore commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.28611Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Bills28611R128128611Debate resumed from 5 April, on motion by Mr Brough:That the bill be now read a second time.21:15:0028611Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The opposition does not oppose the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001, subject to some remarks in respect of detail which I will subsequently make and the second reading amendment which I will move at a subsequent stage, which I hope and expect will be seconded by my colleague the member for Fremantle. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Are you sure?XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr Lawrence—Yes.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Yes. She would only not second it if she were not here. 10000Crosio, Janice (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—I am sure all comments will come through the chair, as the parliamentary secretary and the honourable member for Perth realise. 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—The bill deals with four aspects of broadcasting legislation that are in a way unrelated, so in that sense it is an omnibus bill. In some respects, the issues are non-contentious, but they are nonetheless important. There is one area which we believe ought to be the subject of amendment, and I note in that respect that the government has circulated an amendment. I thank the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and his office for giving me some early and advance notice of that amendment. I am not proposing to speak at the consideration in detail stage. That can be done as required in the Senate. Subject to a couple of detailed points which, as I have said, I will make, I do not believe this bill holds out any great difficulties for the parliament. The four areas that the bill deals with in a separate way are essentially the allocation of licences in two-station markets, antisiphoning processing arrangements, HDTV transmission in two respects—first, what has become known as the Harvey Norman amendment, and, secondly, the amendment on the requirement for national advertisements and HDTV—and, finally, a minor amendment in respect of the datacasting provisions of the broadcasting legislation. Datacasting has been referred to, so the government will understand the irresistible urge on my part to make some more general comments in respect of datacasting. This bill has been the subject of consideration by the relevant Senate legislation committee and has been the subject of a report by that committee. There was a majority report delivered by government senators, a report by Labor senators and a report by the Democrat senator member of that committee. I think it is fair to say that the various reports of the senators fairly outline the issues at stake in this legislation. The Labor senators' report makes the point that in general terms Labor senators agree with the report of the majority government senators, with one exception in respect of HDTV programming, which has been reflected by the government's amendment that was circulated earlier today.So far as the licences in two-station markets is concerned, this is a sensible administrative change that will ensure sensible allocation of licences in two-station markets. These are of course markets where there is limited competition as a result of the nature of the markets. The concession that the broadcasting legislation makes to a mix of competition and diversity is to enable one of two existing players, or a combination of the two, in a two-station market to essentially have allocated a second licence in a two-station market. The change which is proposed is outlined adequately by the minister's second reading speech. It is canvassed fairly by the various Senate committee reports, and there is no difficulty so far as that sensible amendment is concerned.So far as the antsiphoning processes are concerned, this has been one area of the bill where there has been some contention in the course of consideration before the Senate committee, both by way of written submissions and by way of hearing. It has been no surprise to members and senators interested in this area to find the submissions by the free-to-air commercial association FACTS being diametrically opposed to those of ASTRA, which is the subscription or pay TV industry. Having said that, the substance of this amendment is that it is a process amendment designed essentially to give the pay or subscription TV industry more time to make decisions about matters which fall off the antisiphoning list because the commercial free-to-air broadcasting industry has exercised its discretion not to take them up. The submissions made by the free-to-air commercial industry association were to make process changes in a different way. I must say that, if you look at those submissions in isolation, in themselves they look fine; but equally, if you look at the submissions of the subscription or pay TV industry in isolation, they look fine. No compelling argument has been made that I have seen that would cause me to believe that in this area the government has got this process amendment wrong. In terms of making life easier in a process sense and more certain for the pay TV industry, this is a sensible amendment which I have no difficulty in supporting. The question of antisiphoning does of course bring more generally into focus the antisiphoning and antihoarding arrangements. I will not lay it on with a trowel, but shortly we will see the Ashes test match series broadcast from the United Kingdom. Under the antisiphoning and antihoarding arrangements, Channel 7 will be the national free-to-air broadcaster of the Ashes series. Regrettably, in most states, Channel 7 will not show live to air the first session of the Ashes series. In some states, in particular Western Australia, given the time difference, that may increase to almost two sessions. It is regrettable that the commercial free-to-air industry—channels 7, 9 and 10—and, to a lesser extent, the national public broadcaster, the ABC, have not found it within their wit to ensure that the first session is shown on live, free-to-air commercial TV. I have heard all the arguments about programming, but I make the point in this context that we are at the moment seeing the Australian Broadcasting Authority conduct a review of the antisiphoning arrangements. The antisiphoning list expires in 204, and the Ashes— 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—204? 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Yes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—2004?5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Yes. I stand corrected by the parliamentary secretary—2004. It is 31/12/04, from memory, but I am happy to be corrected on that point of detail as well. They expire in 2004. The incongruity of the position of the commercial free-to-air broadcasting industry is that, on the one hand, they have all put in submissions urging that, in this respect, the antisiphoning list be extended for a further 10 years to 2014; but, on the other hand, while seeking that protection from public policy, and that protection and support so far as the public is concerned, they cannot find it within their wit to show, under the antisiphoning and antihoarding arrangements, all of the Ashes test matches live on air. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. So, in the course of considering the ABA review, which I suspect that the parliament after this one will deal with, I am sure that people will be looking only too carefully at the performance that the commercial free-to-air industry have put in. In my view, it is absolutely important that Australian free-to-air sporting viewers, who have grown accustomed to seeing these major and important sporting events free of charge rather than on pay TV, continue to have that ability afforded to them. But the commercial free-to-air industry cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they are going to argue that these items ought to remain on the antisiphoning list, they need to produce the goods. There are two aspects to the HDTV transmission amendments. The amendment in respect of national advertisements is, in my view, sensible; there is no difficulty with that. The second area is the area with which the Labor senators had some difficulty and recommended that the government give consideration to amendments. Frankly, I think that it is also fair to say that the majority of senators, in the relevant sections of their report in which this issue is canvassed—1.7 to 1.94—do everything other than come to the realisation that there needs to be change in this area. This particular amendment has become known as the Harvey Norman amendment but it is quite clear, on anyone's assessment—whether that is the free-to-air commercial television industry itself, various senators or other people interested in this matter—that the amendments drafted by the government in the bill do not actually meet or cure the mischief which it is alleged exists. On the contrary, in my view, this amendment as drafted in the bill runs the risk of de facto allowing what you could essentially describe as backdoor multichannelling, which is not consistent with the 1998 framework which established the framework for the government's digital TV and datacasting legislation. It is in this area that the government has circulated an amendment to have the effect of restricting the so-called Harvey Norman amendment to demonstration programs rather than drafted in its broader sense. There are two pages of amendments. I have had the opportunity of giving them some preliminary consideration. I think they are acceptable but, in terms of detail, I might just reserve our rights ultimately to the Senate. I certainly think that the amendment as circulated in the government's name cures the mischief which was identified in the Labor senators' report. The final amendment relates to datacasting. Of itself it is an innocent amendment which causes no difficulty in respect of foreign news and current affairs programming. Again, without laying it on with too much of a trowel, Senator Alston put out a humiliating press release—deliberately coinciding with the focus of the nation on the Centenary of Federation celebrations in Melbourne—indicating that the government had cancelled the datacasting spectrum auction. That proved the point that the Labor Party in opposition had been making since December 1999—that the government's datacasting regime was too restrictive, that it would strangle a prospective industry at birth, that the government had missed an opportunity of seeing a new information industry emerge and flourish, and that the restrictive nature of the government's genre or content based definition of datacasting had essentially seen the death of an industry before it had been born. The industry voted with its feet and walked away from the datacasting auction on the basis that the spectrum was not worth anything—not because spectrum is not inherently valuable but because the government's restrictions were such that there was nothing sensible or useful that one could do with it. So far as datacasting is concerned, it is more a case of what is not in this bill than what is. The government has been deafening in its silence since it pulled the datacasting spectrum in a most humiliating way. You can always tell when someone is embarrassed by what they are about to do—by the day and the time on which they put out the press release. Normally it would be at 5 p.m. on a Friday. But this press release was put out in Canberra at 4.30 p.m. on the Wednesday that the parliament was sitting in Melbourne for the celebration of the Centenary of Federation. That really does show you that you are right at the peak of the cycle so far as humiliation is concerned.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—That is absolute nonsense. You do not believe that.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Absolutely. That is what I have said from day one, and any number of editorialists will agree with that point of view. The government has been deafening in its silence since then. There are a couple of points that we essentially need to know: does the government still regard datacasting as being part of the 1998 digital TV framework? If it does, it would be helpful if the government indicated what it was proposing to do so far as an amended datacasting regime is concerned. We have heard all the industry speculation—the big bang theory—that datacasting is going to become a subscription based industry. It would actually be nice if the minister, Senator Alston, simply indicated if the government still sees datacasting as part of the 1998 digital TV framework. If it does, fine; but tell us what shape it sees datacasting now taking. If it does not see datacasting as part of the 1998 framework any longer, it should tell the parliament and the industry that, because that brings with it some serious implications. My representative in the Senate, Senator Bishop, I am sure will have the opportunity of asking Senator Alston that question directly.Insofar as the remainder of the bill is concerned, I have indicated those areas where there is no difficulty. The amendment which the government has circulated in respect of the so-called Harvey Norman amendment at first blush appears to be suitable. But, as I have indicated, I will reserve our rights on the detail, but so far so good. I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House (1) notes the embarrassing failure of the Government's datacasting spectrum auction in May this year due to the Government's restrictive and unworkable genre-specific datacasting regime; and(2) calls on the Government to state publicly whether it remains committed to the 1998 Parliamentary framework on digital television and datacasting; and (a) if the Government does not remain committed to the 1998 Parliamentary framework, to establish immediately a public process to ascertain the views of industry generally on the future of digital television and datacasting; or (b) if the Government remains committed to the 1998 Parliamentary framework, to immediately announce the amendments it will propose to its unworkable and restrictive genre-specific datacasting regime to enable a viable datacasting industry to emerge”.10000Crosio, Janice (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Is the amendment seconded?XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr Lawrence—I second the amendment moved by the member for Perth.21:32:0028615Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—It seems that the member for Perth is seeking to gain some sort of mileage in relation to the cancellation of the datacasting auction, but there is none to be gained. The facts are that on 9 May the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts directed the ACA to cancel the datacasting transmitter licence auction, which was scheduled for 21 May, and this followed consultation with registered applicants and consideration of the matters that they raised. The government has indicated that it would consider a range of options in relation to the timing of any future auctions. Of course the minister did take into account the relevant legislation relating to the allocation of spectrum and datacasting services. When making that decision he took particular account of comments put to him by the applicants, who generally considered the public interest was best served by an early roll out of datacasting services. However, at the time, the minister considered that these particular considerations did not outweigh the concerns about the likely consequences of continuing with the auction with a limited number of applicants. So, as I say, following the cancellation of the datacasting auction, the government has announced that it will consider a range of options in relation to the timing of future auctions. So I do not see where the member for Perth thought he was going with that particular passage of his speech. Nevertheless, the government's commitment to delivering to Australians viable digital television—the next generation of television broadcasting—is rock solid. Digital is the future of television and, to coin the phrase, `being digital' means a licence to grow; it means future expansion. By contrast, Labor's lethargy in establishing a viable and flexible broadcasting policy while it was in government, and its lack of interest in the matter while in opposition, is quite well known and it is quite self-evident.Through sensible policy that understands market conditions and regulatory requirements, the government is ensuring that our nation will have access to the best quality digital television, thereby providing viewers with an exciting new television experience in terms of interactivity, greater choice and access to services via the television. These services will include datacasting, such as home banking, shopping, entertainment guides, electronic mail and access to the Internet, as well as markedly superior pictures and sound and electronic program guides. So, basically, it will be upgrading the whole experience. The digital world is in fact intrinsically scalable as it grows and changes in a more organised and continuous way than the analog world. However, the government is delivering on a commitment to ensure that both an analog and a digital signal is broadcast to television viewers during the transition period between the two systems.Further, our policy allows existing broadcasters to offer additional TV services to those areas of Australia with only one or two commercial television stations, thereby giving regional and rural viewers greater choice of services as well as new interactive services via their television. The government is meeting the promise to ensure that captioning standards for the deaf and the hard of hearing are maintained and extended through digital television. Furthermore, the policy set in place by the government will ensure that funds are made available for a regional equalisation plan that will facilitate the conversion of television broadcasting to digital transmission in regional and remote Australia. This will ensure that these communities, including hundreds of communities in Western Australia, will not be disadvantaged by the transition, just as the government has committed $10 million to assist in the extension and improvement of self-help television transmission in regional and rural areas and $35 million for the remedying of reception black spots, as well as $70 million for the roll out of SBS coverage in rural areas. This is a funding initiative that I am particularly supportive of.I am pleased to support any initiative that expands the coverage of SBS. I declare an interest. As a former member of the board of SBS, I can say how impressed I was and continue to be with the artistry of the content and quality of programming, the high standards of local production and the efficiencies within SBS. It has a creative and innovative approach to public broadcasting and is truly a gem in the world of television and radio in this country. Considering the misinformation that abounds regarding our national broadcaster, it is also worth noting that the government has made provision for $36.8 million over four years to assist the ABC to purchase digital television capital equipment. This funding is in addition to previously announced funding for the ABC and SBS phase 1 costs to digitalise television production and studio equipment.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—We are friends of the ABC.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—You are quite right, Parliamentary Secretary. We have budgeted also for the ABC to receive $642.4 million in 2000-01 for operating and non-digital capital expenses. Further, the government has lent the ABC $53 million over the next two financial years to allow it to build new television facilities in Sydney. The bill before the House builds on this thoughtful approach to public policy in broadcasting and makes a number of amendments to existing legislation in relation to commercial television licences in remote and regional areas, to high definition television and the antisiphoning laws that apply to television programming.With regard to remote and regional licence areas, it has long been recognised that, provided some technological and economic challenges were resolved, the introduction of digital television could prove to be of great value to communities previously deprived of different commercial broadcasting services. By way of background, commercial television licences are allocated, under the terms of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, to particular broadcasting areas across Australia, with no more than three licences granted for any one area and with no licensee entitled to more than one licence. However, those areas that are presently underserviced, in that they receive the broadcast of only one or two commercial services, will be afforded the opportunity to access additional services should the parliament pass this bill, for the bill will amend the act to ensure that a third digital licence can be allocated without deliberate obstruction on the part of one of the existing licence holders.Section 38B of the act presently allows for incumbent licence holders to seek the third licence, for digital transmission, in an area served by only two commercial broadcasters. This additional licence can be accessed if the two licence holders make a joint submission, one holder declines to seek the licence and the other applies alone or, where an agreement is not reached, the licence is put to auction. However, the current provisions require that both of the broadcasters make some kind of response to the Australian Broadcasting Authority. In the event that one of the broadcasters refuses to respond, the process grinds to a halt. Under the amended act, a third licence may be issued in these circumstances by enabling the existing licensees to apply either jointly or separately. The bill also makes a number of related consequential amendments.With regard to high definition television, or HDTV, no-one can doubt that it is the next evolutionary step in television broadcasting with the application of the right technology—that is, digital. The bill will ensure that there is sufficient flexibility in the guidelines governing HDTV and standard definition or analog so as to allow for the appropriate demonstration of the features of HDTV during normal retailing hours. At present, the Broadcasting Services Act requires that there be very little difference between material broadcast in HDTV and SDTV, the standard definition television. Under the terms of this bill, as amended by the government, the ABA will be empowered to issue exemptions to broadcasters for differential HDTV-SDTV broadcasting. However, those exemptions will be limited to the transmission of HDTV demonstration `loop tapes' of no longer than one hour in duration. So the Broadcasting Authority would be able to specify materials to be shown under the exemptions, the maximum periods of loop programming and the times at which that material might be shown. It is worth while noting that these provisions—I think the member for Perth called them the Harvey Norman amendment—are somewhat different from those originally proposed. That is in recognition of the indications given by the Australian Democrats and the opposition, so it is hoped that the opposition will publicly recognise the spirit of compromise in which the government amendments have been made. Furthermore, the bill will also enable broadcasters to show different high definition television advertising during the first two years of digital transmission. This measure will give those broadcasters the opportunity to make necessary investments and purchases so as to allow for a similar range of eventual high definition television format local advertising to that which is presently available in standard definition television format.Finally, the bill makes amendments to the antisiphoning regime that safeguards public access to major sporting events on free-to-air television. These amendments will provide for the automatic `delisting' of events in certain circumstances—that is when, six weeks out from an event, no free-to-air broadcaster has taken up the rights to that event. This development is only fair given the requirements put on pay TV broadcasters for the finalisation and publication of television schedules. It is important to note that where free-to-air broadcasters demonstrate to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts their opposition to the delisting of an event—for example, if they claim to have not had a reasonable opportunity to secure the rights in question—then the minister will be able to override the automatic delisting by way of declaration.The question of antisiphoning laws gives me the opportunity to make a comment on a number of issues facing commercial television broadcasters in Perth at present. There has been some concern expressed in some quarters about the lack of live television coverage in Perth of the upcoming Wallabies-Lions rugby union tests. This is a matter of great importance in Perth. In fact, a number of constituents have contacted me about this and I appreciate their concerns, particularly because the antisiphoning laws act as a disincentive for the live pay TV broadcasting of this event and similar events. Perth sports lovers are therefore left in a bind, with access to a delayed free-to-air telecast and no access to a live pay TV telecast.I should make clear that I do not see an appropriate role in this circumstance for the governmental direction of television programming. It would be difficult for any government to seek to legislate out of existence the two-hour time difference between Perth and the eastern seaboard—as tempting as that might be—and it would be foolhardy for such a government to seek to write programming schedules, so I do not suggest we do either. However, these concerns ought to be the subject of consideration by commercial broadcasters in Western Australia who must juggle live events occurring on the eastern states' timetable and established broadcasting schedules, including news services. They may well find that their viewing audience is seeking more flexible programming arrangements to meet their needs and wishes in the 21st century. However, in the spirit of such flexibility and proper consideration, I commend this bill to the House.21:45:0028617Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I rise tonight to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001. The purpose of this legislation is to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to remove the capacity for existing commercial television licensees in a two-station market to block the allocation of a third licence to one of them; to allow for the automatic delisting of events from the antisiphoning list 1,008 hours, or six weeks, before the start of a listed event unless a free-to-air licensee has already signalled that they intend to secure the rights to broadcast that event and will do so; to modify the simulcast provisions to allow licensees to broadcast high-definition television at different times to the broadcast of the same programs in standard definition television; and, finally, to allow datacasters to include in their services foreign language news and current affairs programs.The fundamental concern of the Australian Labor Party has been to make sure that all Australians have equitable access to the television services of this country. Ruthless competition between free-to-air providers has now moved to a battle to provide pay television services. The move to encourage—or, more correctly, force—Australians into buying pay television does not augur well for this basic equity, especially for those of our citizens living in non-metropolitan areas. Little wonder that people are driven away from the free-to-air services when you think of some of the rubbish and the repeats that are on television regularly. If you happen to suffer from insomnia and you look at the rubbishy advertising, effectively, that is run late into the night, where people are, in the main, watching fitness programs—and who wants to watch fitness programs or how to get onto the next diet at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m.—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—What is wrong with fitness?83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—There is nothing wrong with fitness, member for Fisher, but at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. the last thing that I have on my mind is lifting weights or going for a run around the block. I am more interested in getting sleep, but on those occasions when I do wake up, for the benefit of the member for Fisher, I would rather watch an absorbing movie or something educational. Unfortunately, the media proprietors are more interested in driving people away from the programs. On the subject of repeats, recently, prior to addressing an ABC rally, an elderly lady in my electorate who expressed her concerns for the future of the ABC, said—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—We have boosted funding. We are friends of the ABC.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—I will get to that. If you want to talk about the ABC—10000Crosio, Janice (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Order! The member for Lowe has the call. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration wants the call, he can seek it.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—If the member for Fisher wants to provoke me, I will be happy to respond.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, I am sure he will not.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—I just want to make this point about the ABC, because your lot has destroyed the ABC. You might talk about the $17.87 million that you are putting back per year into the ABC, but that is very small change when you are spending $20 million a month to get yourself re-elected. I want to talk about what this lady, an elderly constituent of Strathfield, said to me recently before I addressed an ABC rally. She was complaining bitterly about the fact that the ABC was running many repeat programs, and she said: `The board of the ABC must think that I have Alzheimer's disease, because there are so many repeats. I am an alert old bird and I only need to see a program once and not three, four, five or six times.' That is the state of television in Australia today, not only with the ABC but also with the commercial networks.0V5Slipper, Peter, MP83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—The member for Fisher persists in interjecting and I am happy to get back to the ABC, because I happen to think that the ABC—the public broadcaster—is very important for protecting and promoting our democracy in Australia. Unfortunately, the bulk of public opinion in Australia—as you know—is manipulated by Mr Packer and Mr Murdoch. Quite plainly, that is not in the public interest. There is something wrong with our media laws, member for Fisher, and you know it, and any erosion of the funding for the ABC, which there has been—$66 million cut since the Howard government were elected—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—We have boosted funding.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—Well, you have restored some funding and I will give you some credit for that, but it is very big shortfall—0V5Slipper, Peter, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—No, I am happy to talk about the ABC, because that is relevant—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—But I am not happy to have the interjection across the floor. You will go through the chair.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—We are boosting funding, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—The member for Fisher wants to provoke me, and I am very happy to respond to the interjections because I happen to think that the ABC is very important to Australia and to our democracy. It is a dreadful thing in this day and age that the bulk of public opinion in our country is manipulated by two media moguls. That is not in the public interest. We need to have a robust, independent public broadcaster, and the restoration of the funding for the ABC is clearly in the public interest. I would like to see the ABC go from strength to strength, because the ABC should be providing— 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Under us it has.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—That is not true. You cut $66 million from the ABC's budget since you were elected to government. It was only the pressure that came from this side of the House that led you to restore $17.7 million per year to the ABC's budget with the conversion to digital broadcasting, because—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—We could afford to do it because of sound economic management.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—No, that is another thing. You might like to think that you are a sound economic manager, but there are a lot of people out there suffering, member for Fisher, not only in my electorate of Lowe but no doubt in your electorate. I was up in your electorate earlier this year, and I must say that you do have a very nice electorate, with the Sunshine Coast. You are very close to Noosa, and I think it is wonderful that the citizens of Noosa have been collaborating with the Uruguyan Ambassador, His Excellency Mr Pablo Sader, for Noosa to have a sister city relationship with Punta del Este east of Montevideo in Uruguay. That augurs very well for tourism and for the future of both Uruguay and Australia. I know I am getting off the topic, but I think that is an important point to make in this debate.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—You never get off the topic!83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—I know the member for Hinkler is from Queensland, and he is a very parochial member of this House. He probably thinks that Noosa is not a bad part of the world either. It might not have a lot to do with Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 but, because the member for Fisher has provoked me to talk about the ABC and get a bit sidetracked—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—You can receive the ABC in Noosa.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—You can see the ABC in Noosa. I just hope that the people in Noosa—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I am sure the member for Lowe does not need the help of the member for Fisher.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—watch the ABC, because the ABC provides news, education, information, drama and programs that you, unfortunately, do not see on the commercial networks. If you just had the commercial networks and you did not have the opportunity to view the ABC, you would be the poorer for it, because the ABC has a very important role.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—That is why we increased the funding.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—God forbid, member for Fisher, if we ever had the day when we had programs like The Footy Show on the ABC. Programs like The Footy Show do not do very much to enhance information and knowledge. They might provide some entertainment value. I am not saying that a program like that has no value, but it is not appropriate on the ABC.Before I was distracted, I was making the point that the Labor Party wants to make sure that all Australians have equitable access to television services in this country. Communications have been as much a part of Australia's nation building program as transport—which I know the member for Hinkler, as chairman of the Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts, a committee of which I am very happy to be a member, has a big interest in—immigration and the like. The democratised forms of communication have been telephony, radio, television and, most recently, the Internet. Together they represent the platforms whereby every Australian can access and participate in the world around them.Public access to the media of communications and broadcasting is to be protected in the same way as we seek to protect the quality of our air and waters, yet we have witnessed over a number of years a steady and ruthless campaign by the media magnates to control all media of communications and broadcasting in Australia. Part of this campaign for control has involved the media proprietors throwing the various platforms of media into competition with one another so that they can reserve or quarantine the broadcast of certain programs to specific media as opposed to others—for example, the reserving for pay television of certain sporting events that Australians were used to seeing on free-to-air television. This has allowed the great gods of communication—Mr Packer and Mr Murdoch, whom I was referring to earlier—to sell pay television. They are desperate to sell pay television because it offers them another source of profit, ignoring the obvious result, which is that many Australians are excluded from any access to these events. Even on free-to-air television we have seen examples of profits before access. Recently, Channel 7 decided that they would not broadcast a one-day international involving Australia because it clashed with other commercial programming. They thought it was good enough to provide it on their Optus Vision C7 sport channel, under attack from all cricket fans—well, all except for one: the Prime Minister. Channel 7 added insult to injury by giving the ABC permission to take up the burden. The result is a commercial broadcaster cynically looking for an indirect subsidy from the ABC, the national broadcaster filling the gaps left by a commercial broadcaster motivated by the desperation of the media proprietors to sell pay television.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—You sound like a socialist.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—Is there anything wrong with being a socialist?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Lots wrong.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—You are interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am sure the member for Lowe needs no help from the parliamentary secretary at the table, and I am sure that the member for Lowe wishes to continue the debate as far as the bill is concerned.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—I certainly do. I have got some time for the member for Fisher; ideologically and philosophically we see things differently. He does enjoy provoking me when I come into the chamber, but I will always defend the people that we represent and, particularly when we are talking on broadcasting legislation, our public broadcaster. I am sure he understands that.As I was saying, the desperation to sell pay television by the media barons has also led to irreparable damage to the once great game of rugby league in Australia. Rupert Murdoch needed rugby league to ensure that Australians had to buy his Foxtel. Four years since the great Super League revolution he has succeeded, with thousands of supporters in my electorate of Lowe simply stuck with the consequences. Only yesterday I spoke at length to a young constituent of mine, an intelligent young man, Joseph Johnson. Joseph is from Drummoyne and attends one of the many excellent high schools in my electorate of Lowe, St Patrick's College, Strathfield. He expressed his disappointment at seeing so many different events simply held to ransom by pay television operators. He is certainly not alone.So we have a simple equation: Australians can have their rights of access to communication and broadcasting but only subject to the dictates of these media magnates. The ABC, an organisation so reviled by the government that it hired a hatchet man to do over the national broadcaster—0V5Slipper, Peter, MP83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—stands as the only guardian of the rights of all Australians to non-profit-motivated access to free-to-air broadcasting. Mr Acting Speaker, the member for Fisher insists on interjecting. I am more than happy to respond to those interjections, and I will do so through the chair.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Do not allow yourself to be provoked—ignore him.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—It is a little bit hard to ignore him—10000DACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Do not argue with the chair; just ignore him.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—because there is a lot of static coming from over there. He talks about the restoration of funding to the ABC. Yes, I will acknowledge that you have restored funding in the last budget, and I will give you a tick for that, but I also have to put on the record—10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—The chair appreciates the tick, but you had better refer to the government. 83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—Okay, I will give the government a tick for it, but I will not give the government a tick for raping $66 million out of the ABC budget. You are only putting back something from what you have already taken away. As we—and particularly my leader, the Hon. Kim Beazley—have said so often here over the last couple of weeks, you are spending $20 million a month of taxpayers' money to get yourselves re-elected on 17 November, which is when I expect the next federal election to be held. I do not believe that is in the public interest, because that money could be used for other purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MP83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—Getting back to the bill, Mr Acting Speaker—and I know that you came into the chamber to listen to my contribution to this debate because you always take an interest in what I have to say and you give me invaluable feedback, and I appreciate that; the member for Fisher just loves to interject but I am happy to take his interjections—the concentration of commercial free-to-air and pay television broadcasting ownership in Australia now means that media magnates exclusively decide how much Australians pay for their viewing options.This concentration of ownership and programming decisions means that access to the world for Australians is at the mercy of the corporate interests of an unelected and unaccountable few. In the hands of this government, these magnates are even more inaccessible and unaccountable. Witness the One.Tel debacle where the senior management, whose conduct of that company's affairs has surely been reprehensible, have been singled out for public accountability, yet the sons of the magnates, who sat on the board and had statutory responsibility for that company's conduct, have been studiously ignored.The amendments to this legislation before the House tonight that deal with datacasting, while benign in themselves, are the tip of an iceberg which demonstrates the catastrophe of this government's policy on digital broadcasting, a policy motivated by the need to protect the voracious appetite of these media moguls. Their greed and the complicity of this government have been their undoing. But who bears the cost of this mess? The Australian people in their right of access to free-to-air broadcasting.The passage of time has not dulled or diminished the importance of the rights of access to broadcasting as a plank in the floor of the ongoing nation-building project of our country. Underneath all the wreckage of economic rationalism, all the greed of the media magnates and all the privilege this government represents, the Australian people continue to place a great importance on the right to express themselves through quality programming and enjoying the pursuits of our sporting heroes. The varied platforms of broadcasting are the increasingly important ways and means by which the much touted information revolution is delivered to all Australians. Access to these platforms must be zealously and vigilantly protected and enhanced; otherwise the benefits of our information and technology revolution will fall only to the greedy media moguls.Broadcasting is an essential service for all Australians and it is disgraceful that so much of the debate about it has been conducted to the virtual exclusion of the majority of the Australian public. The debate has been jealously confined to the circle of the media tycoons and their lackeys in this government. Labor's Knowledge Nation is about average Australians being included in the process. Under the Howard government, we are like Bob Cratchet: left cold on the outside looking in. If both Mr Packer and Mr Murdoch are happy, then the Prime Minister has job satisfaction. Under a Beazley government, broadcasting is just one area where average Australians will at last get a look-in.22:05:0028621Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I would like to commence my remarks tonight on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 with a comment made by my good friend the member for Lowe, who I also admire very much. I hope he was not suggesting that somehow the coalition was in any way complicit with `the sons of media moguls'—I think that was his terminology—not being mentioned. It is not the role of the government to do this; it is the role of at least three regulators to look into that matter. I am sure he did not intend to slur the government on that, but just in case that impression may have come across I thought I should raise it. It is certainly not the government's role to in any way interfere in favour of—or against, for that matter—any person, no matter how powerful they are, in the Australian media when the legitimate regulators are doing their job. But tonight we are talking about the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Some of the things we are looking at are to remove the capacity of existing commercial television licensees to block the allocation of additional licences in two-station markets, which is very important in regional areas; permit the automatic delisting of events from the antisiphoning list—that is a list of sporting events that pay TV licensees are prohibited from acquiring unless certain conditions have been met; modify simulcast provisions relating to digital television transmissions; and make minor changes relating to datacasting. These are minor but nonetheless important amendments.The first measure relates to commercial television licences in parts of regional and rural Australia. This is a particular passion of mine. There are areas of my electorate between Bundaberg and Rockhampton which have only recently obtained access to commercial television. In fact, they have not yet been turned on because they are under the television black spot program. They were in the first round. Three of 10 announced recently include Agnes Water-1770, Miriam Vale-Boronen and the township of Mount Morgan. It is almost inconceivable that, 40 years after the introduction of television, those people had to wait until this government's black spot program was in place to have reasonable access to television. We have moved on to cable and we are moving on to digital, yet these people, 40 years on, had been left out in the wilderness. Some aspects of this bill will be of interest to them because many of them have had to connect to Austar to get any sort of reception at all. While they cannot get the free-to-airs, they can get some sort of service through the Austar channels. The measures in the bill before us will remove the requirement for a joint written notice for separate and sole applications for a third commercial service in digital mode in those areas with two commercial television licences. Effectively, this removes the veto right where one of two incumbents is prepared to provide a third commercial service in digital mode. Some of the areas that this would apply to are Darwin, Mildura, Tasmania, regional Western Australia, remote central and eastern Australia and Mount Isa. Having just been over to Western Australia on the radio inquiry, I am appalled at the lack of good broadcast communications over there. To see Western Australia and remote parts of central Australia at least getting another opportunity in the television sphere does my heart some good. The good news for people in those centres is that there should now be no impediment to their receiving additional television services through a digital set-top box. This is another example of how the National Party is working in tandem with our Liberal colleagues to put runs on the board for people in the bush. We have delivered better television, better phones, better mobile telecommunications and better communications in general for the vast bulk of the Australian continent neglected by the previous government.The bill also moves to protect controllers of additional licences from being in breach of the control rules, that is, that no person shall control more than one licence in a licence area. This was considered necessary because the existing provisions of section 73A may not protect certain licensees in some circumstances. This amendment is really mechanical in nature in that it removes legislative impediments to incumbents in two-station markets offering a third channel. It gives the opportunity for this to occur in a number of ways. A licensee who is prepared to provide the service can do so. If the other licensee wanted to contest that, there would be a priced based allocation process. It could be that they jointly operate the third channel. Of course, if one declined the opportunity, the other one could be given the licence in his or her own right. Also, by allowing this to be done through the digital mechanism and encouraging people to get set-top boxes, it enhances and speeds up the likelihood of people in that area being able to get involved with digital TV as it comes along. If you like, there is a hidden benefit in the whole operation. The second area the bill addresses is antisiphoning. A number of speakers have mentioned this tonight. This government is committed to ensuring that major sporting events are shown free to air. We recognise that free-to-air will soon reach close to 100 per cent of television viewers, thanks to the television black spot program of the government I was talking about. Of those, only 20 per cent have pay TV. Nevertheless, there are some, like those people I talked about who have only Austar, who find that valuable and there is no reason why, when free-to-airs do not wish to take up their options, people who watch cable and satellite type services should not be given the opportunity to watch those general sporting events.The bill before the House provides for the introduction of automatic delisting of events under the antisiphoning regime six weeks out from the event should free-to-airs not want the rights. The antisiphoning provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 encourage free availability of popular sporting events by preventing pay TV licensees from acquiring a broadcasting right to a listed event unless a free-to-air broadcaster has acquired the right to also broadcast the event. When a free-to-air broadcaster does not intend to show an event on the antisiphoning list, the minister is empowered to delist the event so that it can be shown on pay TV. A recent example of a delisting authorised by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts was the Australian cricket tour of India, allowing Austar and Foxtel to cover the event the free-to-air networks chose not to accept.The current antisiphoning list was introduced in 1994 for a 10-year period and expires on 31 December 2004. The antisiphoning regime has provided effective protection of the sporting events most popular with Australian audiences. We all have this passion for sport. However, the current list includes some events that free-to-air broadcasters have not televised for years. They are not ones that have been accessed occasionally; they are ones that have not been accessed for quite some time. In these cases, it may be beneficial to remove these events from the antisiphoning list to enable them to be more easily available to interested pay TV subscribers. I am sure those in my electorate who currently have only pay TV would welcome that move.The government believes that the Australian public should continue to receive, as its first priority, the same high level of free-to-air television coverage, including live coverage, that they have come to expect in recent years. The minister determines which events are listed, and he would have to be thoroughly convinced of the merits before making changes that would place other programs on the antisiphoning list. By the same token, the government has taken steps to expand the list to include, most recently, the 2006 World Cup soccer tournament. These amendments are clearly not about watering down the current regime. They are more of a facilitatory nature. They will provide the free-to-airs with the first right of refusal for events on the list, and removal of events will occur only where the rights to an event are not taken up by free-to-air networks. The legislation ensures that free-to-airs are given every chance to purchase the rights. It is in no-one's interests if the pay TV sector does not have a realistic chance to broadcast events the networks do not want. That is the bottom line.I would like to move to high definition television and the implications of these amendments. Australia certainly stands at the forefront of worldwide introduction of digital television. We have been first off the mark with a lot of things. We held back a bit with black and white television, and fortuitously so. We were careful when we introduced colour television, but the take-up rate by Australians was extraordinarily high. With VCRs, it was the same. With other technologies too such as fax machines and mobile phones, Australians have a much higher uptake when it comes to communications, be they telecommunications or broadcast communications. Although there may be a small hiatus at the beginning of this process, I have no doubt that Australians will be the ones who really take up digital and datacasting in a big way as they evolve. Australia stands at the forefront of the introduction of digital television. This is a new wave of technology, so there will need to be finetuning to ensure that the switch to what we provide is a richer experience and as smooth as possible for members of the public, and not too expensive at that. The government's willingness to revisit this legislation shows that it is prepared to encompass new developments and embrace world's best practice, ensuring a successful roll-out. The current provisions for simulcast do not allow high definition versions of the television service to differ from the standard definition version. The amendments will allow the ABA to determine that specified programs or advertising transmitted on HDTV may differ from that on the SDTV service. The relaxation of programming simulcast rules is for the term of one year and for two years in the case of the advertising simulcast rules. The programming measures will allow television stations to show off the real benefits of high definition television in the early stages by screening programming suitable to that medium—other speakers have talked about demonstration loop tapes. Networks could broadcast high quality high definition television during the day, as long as the content was also repeated on standard definition television within seven days. The advertising relaxation will speed up the roll-out to non-metropolitan areas. Naturally, the roll-out of high definition television advertising production equipment to the regions for local advertising content will be staggered, for financial reasons.The very minor changes relating to datacasting, which is not yet publicly available, would be to amend the type of program a datacaster could transmit—I use a quote from the Bills Digest—from a `foreign language news bulletin' to `foreign language news or current affairs'. I noticed that the shadow minister was somewhat critical of the government in that it cancelled the datacast option. Although it was disappointing that that had to happen, I think that was the sensible thing to do. The minister cancelled it on 9 May when the auction was scheduled to go ahead on 21 May. A number of things occurred before that. The minister consulted the three remaining registered applicants and took detailed submissions from each of them as well.When he came to his decision, there were a number of motivating factors. One was that in the five major markets there would have been only one service provider to emerge in each. That is hardly the optimal outcome for the community, considering the benefit that a new service should have delivered. Then, having a lack of competitive tension, with only one operator and not two or three bidders, would have meant that there would have been no rigor for the public to receive any great service. The allocation of datacasting licences would have been at a price substantially below its long-term value in the market. When you start to add those things up, you can see that it would not have been a good idea to proceed on that basis. It would have been a pretty ordinary sort of an auction. The minister considered that these considerations outweighed the positive consequences of continuing with the auction in that limited environment of applicants.The government, through the minister, directed the ACA to repay the interest on the eligibility payments that were made by the applicants so that people were not left out of pocket by the government's process. I think it would be fair to say that cancellation of the auction, while it may delay it slightly, will not significantly stump the development of interactive television services. There is a digital television strategy group within the industry which is looking at a range of technical and standards issues involved with the introduction of the interactive side of digital television. I think that is very important. That group is working closely with manufacturers. I think that combination of things—holding back a little, stopping the auction, going back to the industry and saying, `Let's make sure we've got the technology and the standards right'—is the best way to go.Let us contrast that with what happened under the previous government when it came to the roll-out of digital telephones. Ask anyone in regional and rural Australia what the government did to them with analog phones. I am not saying that analog phones would not have gone at some point in the future, but the way that the previous government locked this government—and subsequent governments, for that matter—into the cancellation of analog phones was certainly highly inconvenient for the people of regional and rural Australia. The government was left with nowhere to go but to negotiate an extra nine months for the roll-out of a new technology, and CDMA is that technology. Since then, the government has been progressing the roll-out of CDMA—I think it is up to about 96 per cent coverage of people in their homes—and with another $25 million awarded recently to Vodafone to roll out the technology along the highways. Contrast that with what might have happened if we had rolled out interactive digital datacasting in some bodgie way. So I think the minister acted responsibly in that and I think the shadow minister was just scoring a cheap point. I do not think it enhanced the quality of this debate. I think it is good legislation; it tidies things up. It is progressive and it makes the regime better. I commend it to the House.22:25:0028625Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I am happy to rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 and also to indicate my support for the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister. I think I probably have a different story to tell than the member for Hinkler. I believe that we are here today again to try to sort out the broadcasting legislation mess. In what I believe should be an opportunity to do so much—to set up Australia for a generation to come—this government instead has bungled its way to a standstill. As members of parliament, we have had the privilege of being right here, right now, in the corridors of power, smack bang in the middle of a technological revolution that is changing the world forever. What we do here and what we decide with regard to this issue is a great responsibility, and it will reverberate for decades to come.Alvin Toffler, in his landmark book Future Shock, called the inability to cope with the rapid change taking place in society future shock. That is precisely what this government is suffering from: future shock. In an individual member of society future shock is regrettable, but in a government it is unforgivable. This government has been presented with this amazing new technology that will revolutionise broadcasting and information delivery systems, and it has absolutely no idea what to do with it. The government flounders along, not only introducing unworkable, erratic and just plain hopeless legislation that clearly demonstrates its inability to deal with this issue but also working to hamper, stifle and destroy this emerging industry. With horrified fascination, we have watched the Keystone Cops effort with the datacasting spectrum auction that not only blew a hole in the budget but also blew an even bigger hole in this country's reputation. In March this year, the minister responsible, Senator Alston, was labelled by the British web site theregister.co.uk as `the biggest Luddite in history'. That is a pretty damning call.While most of this bill is non-controversial, there are some points of contention. FACTS and ASTRA disagree with one another over the antisiphoning changes. FACTS is the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations—in other words, the free-to-air networks—and ASTRA is the Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association—the pay TV providers. The issue at hand is the proposed change to the antisiphoning provisions. Antisiphoning began in 1994 and was designed to protect major sporting events from being siphoned off to pay TV, to which the majority of people did not have access. These amendments are not supported by FACTS, because they believe that they go too far in giving access to pay TV operators, and they are not really supported by ASTRA, because they do not believe they go far enough in removing the power of free-to-air networks. In the end, these amendments are probably a good balance, but the system will need monitoring and review to make sure that the objectives of the antisiphoning laws are maintained. The provision of this bill that has attracted most comment is the so-called Harvey Norman amendment. The move to digital television has been so botched by this government that the background to these amendments can be quite confusing. It needs some explanation. When the government decided to move Australia towards digital television, they were presented with two options: standard definition, SDTV, and high definition, HDTV—high definition being the better technology but also the more expensive. A compromise was reached that would include both forms with a minimum requirement of 20 hours per week of HDTV from the end of the year 2002. There was also the provision that the HDTV programs would have to be simulcast with the SDTV and analog signals, the purpose being that the free-to-air networks would be prevented from using HDTV as a back door to multichannelling, which is the strict domain of the pay TV providers.Debate interrupted.Adjournment2862610000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.2862622:30:0028626Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—Tonight I want to make a few comments about the passing of a very dear friend and a great Australian by the name of John Edward Bennett. John died on 1 June, just two days short of his 68th birthday. John's life was remarkable in a number of ways, but perhaps the most significant part was the fact that, at the age of 19½, he went to Korea as a member of the military and spent the next two years deeply involved in the Korean War. John went as a young idealistic man with the hope that this was a peace operation to try to reduce wars, but he came back with memories as bad as, if not worse than, most soldiers have ever had, and memories that haunted him for the rest of his life. Certainly, the impact that this had on his life was profound.John and his wife Irene came to Newcastle in 1985 and soon became fairly involved in community affairs. They were model citizens and made an excellent contribution to our local communities. John was involved with many organisations, including the TPI Association and a number of community groups. My thanks go to John for the work he did over the years and my best wishes go to Irene, a strong and able woman, who will carry on many of the activities that John commenced or was involved in.I would also like to refer tonight to the decision in recent weeks that has shocked many people up and down the east coast and the ACT—that is, Prime Television's announcement that it was terminating its local television news service. Prime has this strange idea that somehow it is not accountable and not responsible. I particularly wish to pick up the aspect of part 3, section 7 of the Broadcasting Act 1992 which states that the licensee will provide a service which, amongst other things, contributes to the provision of an adequate and comprehensive range of broadcasting services in that licence area when considered with other broadcasting services. The implication there is very clear: we expect our stations to provide a comprehensive service.We need to go back to the aggregation process when Prime used to broadcast in the Tamworth zone and was allowed to go into the Northern Rivers zone and the Lower Hunter zone, the Newcastle zone. It was given access to a much bigger market and was given money to help in the form of the waiving of fees and charges and also sales tax on equipment purchased to transmit extra signals. It is important to realise that, in those days, it would have been very easy for the government of the day to have given TV access to all of those people for nothing. The three networks had a satellite almost operational at that point which could have been unscrambled and broadcast into every home up and down the east coast, and there would have been no local TV. There would have been no cost. It would have been a very simple service and a very cheap service. We felt that local areas, and particularly regional Australia, needed local material to identify themselves with and to reinforce and maintain local community affairs. The underpinning of the whole aggregation debate was to maintain regional television. The expectation of the channels that came in—the companies that came into those areas up and down the coast and right across the country in one form or another—was that they would provide a comprehensive service. For Prime to now say, as it seems to be trying to say, that because someone else provides a service it does not have to do so is absolutely immoral. What kind of corporate morality is there these days when Prime seems to be saying, `Because someone else does it, we don't need to'? Virtually what Prime is saying is that every station could say they have no responsibility, that it is all somebody else's responsibility.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—It was your legislation.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—The member for Hinkler interjects. I ask him to extend his inquiry into regional radio to examine just how Prime thinks it is not affected by the act and why the minister is not being more definitive about what the act implies and requires. I believe that Prime is in breach of its licence. I believe the government will not do anything about it, and it should. What is happening here is an absolute travesty. For a station to say that it can rip out the money of a region and put nothing back in terms of local news content, which it knows, as we do, was the intent, it should go back and read the company statements of those dates and say that has all been changed somehow. (Time expired)2862722:35:0028627Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—On 13 July this year in Moscow the members of the International Olympic Committee will meet to decide which city should host the Olympic Games in the year 2008. There are five contenders for the 2008 Games: Beijing, Osaka, Istanbul, Toronto and Paris. The IOC's technical review committee have already made known their recommendation that Paris, Toronto and Beijing meet more of their criteria than Osaka or Istanbul, and so it can be assumed that the contest is between the three nominated cities. Having been minister for Sydney's Olympic bid and part of the bid team for Sydney, I have an interest in the process and would like to express my personal views on who should win this honour.The first thing that needs to be said is that the games should be allocated to an Asian city. The games have not been held in Asia since 1988, when they were held in Seoul. Since that time the games have been held in Europe, North America and Oceania. The Athens Games will make it twice in Europe. If the games are allocated to Paris it will be the third time in Europe in 20 years. Osaka has developed a very good bid. Osaka is the second most important city in Japan—one of the world's leading economies. The city has an excellent site for the Olympics on an island in Osaka Harbour and Japan has a first-grade track record in hosting the Summer Games in 1964 and the Winter Games in Nagano in 1998. Nevertheless, the evaluation committee ranked the Beijing bid superior on technical grounds. This is Beijing's second bid; it is supported by an enthusiastic country, it is the capital of the world's most populous country and it is a rapidly growing economic nation.The contest between Beijing and Sydney for the 2000 games was very close, with only two votes separating us in the final vote. There were, however, several factors which were finally decisive in Sydney's ultimate win. They were Sydney's tourist appeal; the facilities being built and planned; Australia's strong sporting tradition; the clean environment in which the games would be held, which would have natural appeal to the athletes; and the strong democratic tradition in this country. At the time of the last bid, Beijing had their emphasis on a political message, and the theme of their bid was opening up China to the world.The emphasis of their bid this time around has now shifted to sports, infrastructure and the environment. Eight years ago there was no doubt there was much concern at the level of air pollution in Beijing. The technical evaluation committee reported negatively on their findings on the environment there. There was much discussion about the problems of environmental factors in that city. Over seven years on, the environmental conditions have now significantly improved in Beijing. I visited Beijing 12 months ago and was impressed by the improved conditions. Factories have been closed down, a major steelworks has been moved to another location and the use of cars in Beijing has also been restricted. The Mayor of Beijing, who is also the president of the bid, has taken a personal interest in the question of air quality there, and there is no doubt that there has been a significant improvement. Secondly, there has been a major emphasis on sports. The performance of the Chinese team at the Sydney Olympics was outstanding, with their ranking being third in the overall medal tally. The crackdown on drug cheats before the Olympics also assisted the image of the Chinese team. The Chinese infrastructure plans for the games are also impressive, drawing on the experience of the Sydney Games and certainly improving their chances of success.As a member of the federal parliament's Human Rights Subcommittee and chairman of the Amnesty International Parliamentary Group, I am of course concerned about China's record in relation to human rights. Again, I believe there has been a significant improvement in this area but there is still more to be done. However, it is the view of many involved in human rights that winning the games would assist in opening China up to further dialogue on human rights around the world. As an example of this, the question of human rights was raised at a private dinner hosted in Sydney by the former Sydney bid team, in honour of the Mayor of Beijing during the Sydney Olympics. Discussions regarding human rights are held between the Australian and Chinese governments on a regular basis. This process will undoubtedly be expanded if China interacts with every country in the globe in preparation for the Olympics.In summary, the decision to be made by the IOC in three weeks time is significant because it will test whether the organisation is Eurocentric or truly global. The Olympics should clearly be awarded to either Osaka or Beijing, as it is indisputably Asia's turn. Beijing has been ranked by the evaluation committee as having a superior bid to Osaka's. It is therefore time that the 2008 Games be awarded to Beijing.2862822:40:0028628Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—In the last 15 minutes of the sitting last Thursday, a piece of legislation called the Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill 2001 was rammed through this House. I do not want to debate that bill, because it has gone on. I was going to speak on it, but I did not get to speak because it was allocated only 15 minutes. During my 18 years as a member of this parliament, many pieces of legislation with which I am proud to be associated have come forward, from both sides. This bill is not such legislation. I would have opposed the legislation for what it does to people and the image it sends out about Australia.Australia does have a well-deserved reputation as a protector of human rights and an enviable record of accepting and resettling refugees. Why is it that many newspaper articles and editorials have drawn attention to detention centres in the past couple of weeks? Last Wednesday, the Canberra Times editorialised that the detention centres are a disgrace. The Australian headline was `Ruddock must see sense on refugees', and so it goes on.Of course, the response of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs is that those of us who worked on the Human Rights Subcommittee to bring down a report on detention centres did not put in the hard yards, we were not worldly-wise, we were a soft touch and we were naive. Why, I wonder, is it that everyone is taking a different point of view from that of the minister? The number is growing daily and, be they bishops, lawyers, trade unionists, international organisations, NGOs or politicians, they are always verbally abused by the minister. We cannot all be wrong all of the time. All wisdom in dealing with refugees, asylum seekers or detainees—and it is a very difficult topic—does not reside with the minister alone. There is an increasing tendency for anyone daring to disagree with government policy to be roundly condemned and abused.I well remember, as one who is old enough, that I was opposed to Australia's involvement in Vietnam and that I was called naïve and wrong. I was also the chair of the parliamentary anti-apartheid group, and again I was condemned and told I was naïve and wrong. And so it is in relation to the detainees. I do believe—and I do not say this lightly—that sooner or later there will be a death or deaths at one of these centres. All of the ingredients are there. Instead of looking at alternative measures, this minister will not consider an alternative point of view. The result he claims to want to avoid will be inevitable. There will be more riots and, I fear, sooner or later a death. As I speak, there are plans to spend even more money on security measures at detention centres to make them more impregnable. A new security fence is to go up at Port Hedland at a cost in excess of $3.6 million. The reason for the new fence is to control an increasingly noncompliant detainee population, says the minister. Let me tell the minister: if I were languishing in the hellhole that is Port Hedland, I would be noncompliant too. Another $2 million will be spent to make Maribyrnong even more impregnable.I received a letter, as most members did, last Thursday afternoon, outlining the facilities at the detention centres. Well, they must have improved greatly since I was there, with the 700 plants for Woomera and various other things. In every disturbance at a detention centre, you see an interview with many people but never with a detainee. Why are the media not given access to detainees? Why are they not told of the provocation towards these people? I saw many times the video made of the Port Hedland disturbance, and that video is shown time and time again. But there is never any airing of the taunts of the guards and other acts that take place. I am also very concerned about the so-called weapons haul. Even today we had Minister Ruddock saying:In detention, people receive a very high quality medical advice and some might say of a higher standard than is available to the Australian community as a whole.This is similar to the statement that he made recently that the housing there is better than most Australians live in. That is absolute nonsense. I do not know where the minister lives, but his standard would most certainly be much better than the detention centre. There was a letter in the West Australian today from one R.J. McLean, talking about holidays and resorts. He said that if it was good enough for the military and the mining people, it was—(Time expired)2862922:45:0028629Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I would like to share with you and the House a sad but nonetheless inspiring event that took place in my electorate last Saturday. It was one year since the horrific Palace Hotel backpackers fire that took place in the town of Childers. On 23 June last year, 15 vibrant backpackers lost their lives in a horrendous blaze; 69 escaped but with physical and emotional scars. It was one of those seminal events which brings the nation to a halt. It drew the attention of the world's press to the full scale of the disaster and to a mourning international community. The story of so many young lives so tragically lost resonated around the world. At the time, the community of Childers, so ably led by Mayor Bill Trevor, responded magnificently to the needs of families of the deceased and to the welfare of the young and deeply scarred survivors. Stories of generosity and self-sacrifice have become local legend.For 14 consecutive days and nights the Childers Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, assisted by service clubs and welfare groups, ran a kitchen for the young survivors, the firefighters, the emergency personnel, the diplomatic corps and particularly the families of the victims. Welfare organisations provided clothing for the survivors, many of whom escaped with only their night attire. On Saturday, many of those caught up in the sad events returned to the scene, 12 months on, to reflect, to pray, to commemorate and, hopefully, to move on. Several hundred local residents and visitors packed the Childers Cultural Centre at dusk for a moving service led by Dr Tim Lloyd-Morgan. As ever, Nancy Calder showed her organising skills in bringing the event together. Wreaths adorned a black cross on centre stage. In the course of the service 15 candles were lit, one for each of the young people lost in the terrifying inferno. A handful of the survivors returned to Childers to commemorate, to remember their friends and to make contact again with their companions and the families that hosted them after the tragedy. The mood was certainly sombre but not maudlin; to say that it was gut-wrenchingly sad would be an understatement. Clergy, councillors, emergency service personnel, state government minister Nita Cunningham and Mike Reynolds attended along with state parliamentary colleague Trevor Strong. Also present was the Irish Ambassador Richard O'Brien; the British Consul General, Stephen Hiscock; and the Acting Dutch Ambassador, Joost Dirkzwager. It fell to me to read the Prime Minister's personal message, in which he pointed out that `the loss of young lives cut short is the hardest to bear'. He went on to say: The courage and comradeship shown by the survivors and the open-hearted character of the people of Childers has ensured that their grief was, and is, shared and echoed here.To the haunting strains of Finlandia and the hymn Be still my soul, the congregation was invited to reflect and to move on. Interestingly, 23 young survivors also met in London the same night to remember their friends. Prior to the memorial service, the mayor chaired a press conference at the Childers library, where it was my pleasant duty to announce a federal government grant of $412,500 and to confirm an earlier grant by the Prime Minister of $50,000. This was in addition to $240,000 from the state government and $29,000 from the British government. The money will go towards the restoration of the backpackers lodge as an art gallery and tourist information centre but, most importantly, a memorial room to commemorate the place where these young people died and to record the names and the portraits of the `Palace 15'. These will be included in a mural recording the red soil, the green crops and the rolling hills of Childers, where the backpackers worked as part of their final Australian holiday experience. Their portraits will be worked into the mural. A new backpackers lodge will be built immediately behind the old building, with a connection through the original hostel to the main street. This will remove an ugly scar from the Childers streetscape, restore a magnificent old building, enrich the cultural experience of the community and, most importantly, record for future generations the names of those we lost and those who survived. As John Anderson said to me—I repeated it in Childers on Saturday and I repeat it again tonight—`Healing takes time and effort.' The restoration of this beautiful building to its original grandeur will be part of that healing.2863022:50:0028630Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—After 13 years in public office, I thought I had seen everything in the art of commercial bastardry. That was until I was approached by Kurri Kurri's Brett Walton. At 27 years of age, Brett has done well for himself. A fitter by trade, he works for a firm which contracts to undertake roof bolting operations in underground coalmines. His work takes him to coalmines around the country, and until recently he was working in South Africa. In March 1998, Brett's work took him to Mackay in Queensland. There, his employer hired an Avis rental car so that he could discharge the duties given him. Two years later, a private investigator landed on the front door of his parents' home. His father was informed that the private investigator was there to discuss an accident involving an Avis rental car which occurred on 3 August 1998. He was told that the car had been damaged to the tune of some $27,000 and that his son Brett was believed to be liable. In September 2000, Brett's parents were contacted by another private investigator, who informed them that the matter had been placed in the hands of a Sydney based law firm, RAJ Lawyers. Soon after, Brett phoned RAJ Lawyers to inform them that he had not been in Mackay in August 2000 and that his work time sheets would confirm that to be the case. Indeed, he was in the Hunter Valley at the time. Having sent RAJ Lawyers a copy of his drivers licence, on 24 October 2000 RAJ wrote to him confirming to him that the birth dates did not match and that the whole thing had been a case of mistaken identity. You can imagine Brett's surprise when during May 2001, while working in South Africa, Brett's employer informed him that he had received a garnishee order to take some $277 from his weekly wage to satisfy a judgment debt of some $27,000 against him. Importantly, the judgment had never been served on Brett. The judgment was in the name of WTH Pty Ltd. In June this year Brett's lawyers lodged a claim to have the judgment set aside. The response of RAJ Lawyers was that Brett had no standing to take such an order, because he was not the debtor because of the mistaken identity. RAJ Lawyers has taken no action to discharge the matters still hanging over Brett's head. He now has a legal bill amounting to some two and a half thousand dollars and growing. Both he and his parents have experienced numerous sleepless nights attempting to deal with the matter. His parents have had to deal with the matter in Australia while their son was working in South Africa. Much to the distress of his employer, Brett has now been forced to return early from South Africa in order to deal with the case himself. WTH has returned Brett Walton's wages; however, Brett's life remains in turmoil and he owes his lawyer some $2,500. Brett Walton obviously wants RAJ Lawyers to take the necessary action to ensure that the case cannot be brought against him again. The matter, legally speaking, still hangs over his head. He has also asked for some $1,500 in compensation. He has suffered a much greater amount in fiscal terms and a much greater amount in terms of disruption to his life and in emotional terms. RAJ Lawyers, on behalf of WTH, is digging in. Their offer is $400. In return, they want a release from Brett that he will seek to take no further legal action against them. RAJ Lawyers, representing WTH Pty Ltd—which I assume is an entity with a relationship with Avis—should do the right thing by Brett Walton. They should release the case to ensure that he no longer has this legal nightmare hanging over his head and they should compensate him appropriately. 2863122:55:0028631Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—On 16 and 17 June, I was fortunate to attend an event in Queensland, the Falken Tyres Rally Queensland, which is the Queensland round of the Australian Rally Championship. This is a spectacular event which just gets bigger every year, and I say that from experience. In the two years since I last competed at Rally Queensland—although not very successfully—the event has grown dramatically. It is great to be able to see the development that has occurred, particularly this year. This being the International Year of the Volunteer, it is appropriate to note that Rally Queensland is run entirely on volunteer effort. The rally involved over 400 volunteers providing control points, roadblocks, scrutineering, safety marshalling, medical and media support. These people were spread over hundreds of square kilometres of bush, mostly around Imbil, but also at Noosa and at Rally headquarters at Ridges Oasis Resort, Caloundra. That countryside has very hilly terrain, and they were linked by an amazing radio network. The organising of that network alone was quite something to behold. Interest in the Australian Rally Championship, which is covered Australia-wide by Channel 10, is growing rapidly. I have to say that Rally Queensland is the best-run event on the Australian Rally Championship calendar. The organising team is led by Clerk of Course Errol Bailey, who has been the guiding force behind Rally Queensland for 11 years. Others helping make the event such a success include Richard Collingwood, Brian Everitt, Lyn Cooley and Margaret Mackay. The list of sponsors includes Falken Tyres, Phillcom Communications, Caloundra City Council and Hella Lights. These volunteers live for their sport and their commitment is something to behold. That core group of people spend the entire year planning this event. They are full-time for the last month prior to the event. They will already be hard at work planning the 2002 event. It is amazing to see how much effort people will go to to support their own sport. That is something that I must commend them for. Rally Queensland is a two-day, two-round event. Competitors spent Friday travelling the course making their pace notes. On Friday night the actual competition got under way at the new Kings Beach sound stage, where it was linked with the Caloundra Food, Wine and Jazz Festival. The field of 64 rally cars, each with a crew of two, plus a large service complement in each case, included 45 of the latest turbo four-wheel drive models. The event drew very big crowds. I was fortunate to participate this year as a volunteer in one of the zero cars, which travel at speed ahead of the field to check that the course is clear. I accompanied an off-road competitor, Colin Hunter, in his Jeep, which had just returned from a successful showing at the Finke Desert Race. Travelling with Colin, I was able to witness the professionalism of the Rally Queensland team first-hand. This event is a huge undertaking and certainly deserves the praise it receives from competitors, spectators and the media. For the record, the top placegetters were Possum Bourne and Craig Vincent from New Zealand; Neal Bates and Coral Taylor from here in Canberra; and Ed Ordynksi and Iain Stewart. Some of my former rallying partners were not as successful. Giles Gargen from the town of Laidley in my electorate unfortunately rolled his car over and destroyed it. He was having a lot of fun. I saw him later and, despite this misadventure, he had a big smile on his face. The event drew big crowds to the township of Imbil. In the past I have been there many times to watch Rally Queensland and to compete, and I cannot get over the way the crowds have grown in that township. I know that it must be having a big impact on the local economy. The commitment from Channel 10 was also impressive. Out on the course there were helicopters following the competitors and a big number of keen spectators gathered at the well-organised spectator points. On the longest stage of the event our zero car got marooned at one of the SOS points, where we had to leave the course. Together with people manning that checkpoint from the Nissan car club, we got to watch all the competitors go by. We all had to put up with a lot of dust, but the spectacular action that people were able to watch from that vantage point was really exciting, with cars flying over the crest at quite some speed. As a rally enthusiast, I am proud to see the way that Queensland's number one rally event is headed. I serve up my congratulations to Errol Bailey and to each one in the team of hardworking volunteers that have made Rally Queensland 2001 such a great success.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:0028632House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices28632The following notices were given:4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer to present a bill for an act relating to the Australian intelligence services, and for related purposes.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer to present a bill for an act to deal with matters consequential on the enactment of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, and for related purposes.HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr Fahey to present a bill for an act to amend the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, and for related purposes.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to computer offences, and for other purposes.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to migration, and for related purposes.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss to present a bill for an act relating to the application of the Criminal Code, to certain offences, and for related purposes.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith to move:That (1) That a Joint Select Committee to be known as the Joint Select Committee on the Intelligence Services be appointed to inquire into and report on the proposed legislative reforms in:(a) the Intelligence Services Bill 2001 and the Intelligence Services (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001: and(b) the provision in the Cybercrime Bill 2001 relating to the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) and the Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) - Liability for Certain Acts. (2) That the committee consist of 8 members: 3 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 1 member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, 2 senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 senator to be nominated by any minority party.(3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.(4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee's report or until when the House of Representatives is dissolved, whichever is the earlier.(5) That the committee report no later than 20 August 2001.(6) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair.(7) That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee.(8) That at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.(9) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, a casting vote.(10) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-government parties.(11) That the committee have power to:(a) send for persons, papers and records;(b) move from place to place;(c) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.(12) That the committee may determine the manner of conduct of its proceedings and in so doing shall consider whether the procedures prescribed in s.92F(2) and (3) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 ('the ASIO Act') should be followed.(13) That the committee shall ensure that any documents having a national security classification provided to the committee are, while in the custody of the committee, kept at a place under such terms and conditions as are agreed between the committee and the Director-General of ASIS, the Director of DSD, or the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, as appropriate.(14) That the committee shall ensure that the identity of staff of ASIS is appropriately protected in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.(15) That the committee has leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and any recommendations as it may deem fit.(16) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it with this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson to move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for works in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 25 June 2001, namely: Construction of Reconciliation Place.84SO'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne to present a bill for an act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.Answers to Questions in Writing28634The following answers to questions were circulated:28634(Question No. 2630)263028634Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 5 June 2001:(1) Has his attention been drawn to the serious allegations of fraud surrounding the awarding of the contract for the “The Facts” CD-ROM project.(2) Will he undertake an investigation of the tender process and make that report public.28634Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) My attention was drawn to an article in the Bendigo Advertiser of May 16 2001 containing an unsubstantiated allegation. I have already dealt with that allegation with a reporter in a media interview held at Ballarat on 17 May 2001.I am disappointed that the journalist chose to disregard the information I provided her on that occasion.(2) As I said during this media interview, the tendering process for the Australia 2030: Investigating the FACTS of Immigration of Immigration was entirely in keeping the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines with the additional safeguard of an independent probity adviser, who monitored and signed off on the process.This resulted in a completely transparent process which was subject to the external scrutiny of the probity adviser.28634(Question No. 2654)265428634Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 June 2001:(1) Is he aware of the escalation in religious oppression of independent religious leaders such as Fathers Nguyen Van Ly and Chan Tin of the Catholic Church, Venerables Thich Huyen Quang, Thich Quang Do and Thich Hue Dang of the Unified Vietnamese Buddhist Church, Elder Le Quang Liem of the Hoa Hoa Buddhist Church and the continued imprisonment of a large number of the clergy of the Cao Dai Church and other Christian Evangelical Churches in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.(2) What representations have been made to the Government with regards to the persecution of religious leaders in Vietnam.(3) What action does the Government intend to take in order to pressure the Government of Vietnam to end all religious persecution and to free those religious leaders currently imprisoned.28634Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) Human rights issues, including religious freedom, are raised with the relevant Vietnamese authorities in several ways. Through our Embassy in Hanoi, we monitor the human rights situation on an ongoing basis. Regular representations are made at both Ministerial and officials level on behalf of individuals who are subject to detention, house arrest or harassment for the peaceful expression of their political and religious beliefs. I discussed human rights with Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister Cam in September 2000 during the latter's visit to Australia, and with Foreign Minister Nien during my visit to Vietnam in May 2000.(3) The Australian Government is committed to working with Vietnam to improve the human rights situation there, and will continue to urge Vietnam to observe internationally recognised human rights standards, including freedom of speech and religion. The Government will pursue this commitment by continuing to take a constructive, non-confrontational and practical approach to human rights in Vietnam, including through dialogue, diplomacy and technical assistance.