2001-08-2039110REPS2967902001-08-20—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Committees29679296792967912:31:0029679Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I present the committee's report on its inquiry into the provision of health services on Norfolk Island entitled In the pink or in the red?, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.296792967912:32:0029679Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Six treaties tabled on 23 May 2000—report 41, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—The report I have just tabled contains the findings of the committee's review of six proposed treaty actions that were tabled on 23 May 2001. These proposed treaty actions are:· an Agreement with Germany on Films Co-Production;· an Agreement on Social Security with New Zealand;· an Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels;· a Protocol to amend the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims;· the withdrawal of ratification of a series of International Labour Organisation Conventions relating to hours of work and manning of ships; and· the denunciation of International Labour Organisation Conventions relating to minimum age rates and the inspection of emigrant ships.In this report we express our support for all six of these treaty actions. Rather than making a grand oration covering all the treaties that I have just enumerated, I would like to comment on the Agreement on Social Security with New Zealand and the protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims.The Agreement on Social Security with New Zealand caused the most contention in the committee, and some very interesting interrogation occurred of officials who came to give testimony. This agreement enables the working life residence of a person who has been in either country to be added together to form an eligibility for a range of pensions that are available in either Australia or New Zealand. The essential feature of this agreement, which replaces an existing and longstanding agreement with New Zealand, is that it changes the manner in which each country contributes to the payment of those pensions.The current agreement is an old style host country agreement, where the country in which the pensioner is resident meets most of the cost of pension payments. In normal cases, you would ask, `What is wrong with the old style agreement?' You might say, `Hold fast to that which is good,' which is a good principle to follow, but in this case the new agreement is a shared responsibility agreement—a more modern approach to the problem perhaps—where each country contributes to paying the pensions in proportion with the length of time that the pensioner has lived and worked in each country.Because of the typical patterns of immigration between the two countries, the new agreement is expected to save the Australian government $93.9 million over the next four years. The agreement is very clearly in the national interest. It will result in considerable financial benefit to Australia while at the same time preserving the important role that freedom of trans-Tasman movement and a single labour market play in developing closer relations, especially economic relations, between our two nations—one day perhaps even leading to the union of the two, but that debate is for another time. The second treaty I would like to comment on is the protocol to amend the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. This agreement fits alongside other international maritime agreements to provide a framework to ensure Australian authorities can claim damages against shipowners for accidents that lead to environmental damage. We agree that Australia should recognise and be part of a scheme that increases the amount that claimants may recover in the event of a ship accident, while at the same time not placing undue financial risk on shipowners or salvors.We see this agreement as providing a way to support new higher liability limits, whilst instituting somewhat simplified procedures. The agreement also acknowledges the fact that inflation has eroded the value of the liability limits provided for in the current convention. I commend this latest report, our 24th report, to the House.12:37:0029680Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—As the chairman of the committee mentioned, the Joint Committee on Treaties, the committee supports all six of these treaty actions. My interest has been in the agreement for the conservation of albatrosses and petrels. These magnificent birds roam the oceans of the Southern Hemisphere but are now heavily threatened by modern fishing practices. Some of you in the House may have seen the ABC program which discussed these birds' lifestyle and habits and will have noted that the albatross loves to follow the fishing boats that bait long-lines. It is an easy meal but a dangerous one as, when they swallow the bait, they swallow the hook too and end up drowning as the lines are hauled behind the boats. Work being done on this has discovered that it is almost always the females of the species that tend to be caught as they are the ones searching for a quick meal, whereas the males roam further into the southern oceans. These birds are also threatened by man's habits of leaving plastic and marine debris around, as well as by pollution and disease. One of the researchers working on trying to limit the damage done by fishing is a Tasmanian, Nigel Brothers, who has invented a means of having the line baited lower and sunk at a depth where the hungry bird will not bother to dive. I understand it has helped to limit the bird by-catch.The proposed Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels seeks to coordinate and harmonise conservation actions undertaken in both terrestrial and maritime environments internationally to conserve albatrosses and petrels and their habitats in the Southern Hemisphere. The agreement was developed under the umbrella of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, known as the Bonn convention. The agreement brings international conservation standards and actions in relation to albatrosses and petrels in line with those currently in place domestically in Australia. It does this by sharing information and contributing to greater knowledge of the species through additional networks. The recommendation is to support the proposed Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels and recommends that binding treaty action be taken, and I think this is a very important measure that we have undertaken.The other two proposals that I have an interest in in this series of treaties are the withdrawal of ratification of four ILO conventions—namely, 57, 76, 93 and 109, which deal with hours of work on board ships and manning—and the proposed denunciation of the ILO conventions 15 and 21, which deal with minimum employment age for trimmers and stokers and the protection of emigrants on board migrant ships. These conventions are out of date or are better covered elsewhere under ILO conventions. Trimmers and stokers are no longer employed on today's ships as, where coal is used, the process is mechanised. And as far as the seafarers' hours of work are concerned, this would be better ratified under convention 180 instead, which I think this government has given some consideration to. I understand there is further work going on with that to ratify hours of work for seafarers right around the world.After seeking advice and information from the ACTU and other interests—and the committee has also done this—I think the committee has gone in the right direction to get rid of these outdated conventions. I therefore support the recommendations, and I thank the treaties committee and its secretariat for its continuous good work in all these deliberations. 12:41:0029681Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills29681R136929681Bill presented by Ms O'Byrne.12:42:0029681O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—It is with pleasure that I present the Quieter Advertising—Happier Homes Bill 2001 to the House today. My friend and colleague the member for Capricornia is supporting this bill, which amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. The intention of this bill is quite simple: it places an obligation upon the Australian Broadcasting Authority to undertake investigation which will determine standards for television advertising in relation to the loudness of such advertising and to require that those standards be enforced. This is to be achieved through two simple amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.The first of these amendments is to empower, and indeed require, the ABA to, in writing, determine program standards in relation to the loudness of television advertisements. This is to be inserted after section 125 and designated as section 125A. The second amendment is an insertion after paragraph 158(i) and is a requirement that the ABA conduct or commission research into the loudness of television advertisements, determine program standards in relation to the loudness of television advertisements and monitor compliance with the standards that it sets.The Broadcasting Services Act is the legislation which provides the framework for broadcasting regulation in this country. Currently, there are no provisions within this act relating to the loudness of television advertisements that provide those concerned TV viewers with a process to have their concerns met. Reference is made to codes of practice, which are not mandatory; arguments are put that it is not in anyone's interest to have TV advertisements so loud that they annoy people and therefore it is not a problem. Yet advertisements are still loud and people are still inconvenienced, annoyed or in some cases severely distressed.In the context of the many weighty issues and measures dealt with by this House, ensuring the volume of television advertising is similar to the volume of the programming may not seem at first glance to be an issue of vital importance. But, whilst parliament plays many roles, surely arbitrarily determining what is good or not good for the community or what is important or not important is not among those roles. And this is an issue that impacts upon the lives of nearly every Australian.There are millions of televisions in Australian homes, and many Australian families that are looking for a bit of peace and quiet. In fact, over 99 per cent of Australia's 7.2 million homes have televisions. The need for this legislation can be clearly seen when looking at the intense interest from people from all over the country and from all sectors of the Australian community. Overwhelmingly there have been messages of support for this proposal. One of the most persuasive letters received in relation to this bill was from a gentleman in Berry, New South Wales. For the benefit of the House I will read from his brief letter:I refer to the attached newspaper article (the Daily Telegraph, 27 June) and congratulate you on the steps you are taking. I have a fairly significant hearing loss and being blasted out of my chair by really loud advertisements on the television is not nice.It is important to recognise that those in the community with hearing impairment and who rely on hearing aids need to calibrate those hearing aids to particular levels. When the ads come on—and some of them are excessively loud—these people are caused significant discomfort and distress. As this is Hearing Awareness Week, it makes this legislation even more relevant as we strive for better outcomes for those people with hearing impairment. Perhaps this bill is a step in the right direction. While the impact on those who rely on hearing aids may be seen as one of the more significant problems, the impact is also widely felt in the hundreds of thousands of homes around the country in which there are children. I am sure we have all had the experience of hearing or seeing parents tell their children to `turn that television down', and for exasperated children to reply that they did not turn it up—`It's just the ads.' That is what has led to this bill, or at least the short title, being named the Quieter Advertising— Happier Homes Bill 2001. The level of distraction and difficulties caused by the perceived volume differential of television advertising is something that I believe that this bill addresses in a way that will not needlessly impact on either the television broadcasters or the advertising industry.Advertising takes up a significant proportion of the free-to-air television time. Indeed, I can advise the House that the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice indicates that, in any one hour, it is possible for 16 minutes of non-program material to be broadcast. That adds up to about one-quarter of the time within any one hour that advertisements are being broadcast. So we can see that the impact on the lives of television watchers of loud advertisements is quite significant.I wish to make it abundantly clear to the House that I am not concerned about advertising per se; it is an important part of our society and an educative tool within the economy. Advertisements can also be incredibly clever and extremely humorous, but advertisements that are perceived to be broadcast at a volume higher than the other non-advertising programming are a problem. Many Australians believe that the perceived volume of the advertising impacts unreasonably on their lives. They now engage in a new Australian pastime: muting ads. Whilst some people can turn down the volume or switch channels, it is not an option for many older people and it is not an option for those who do not have the advantage of a remote control. They are stuck with the volume differential.When this issue was first raised by me and my friend and colleague the member for Rankin—and I am very pleased to see him in the House—the member for Moreton, who has experience in the television industry, suggested that the advertising may not be technically louder. Indeed, the honourable member said:The television commercials are not so much excessively loud in the sense of being heard to be loud but rather feel louder because of the compression of the dynamic range.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—They just sound louder.84SO'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE—They are not louder; they just sound louder. I think we can all agree how ludicrous that option is. Indeed, the honourable member may be correct: he put the perceived volume differential between advertising and programming down to sound compression technology. My understanding is that, by compressing the sound and removing the quieter elements of the sound, it is effectively made to seem louder. That may be the case when testing the sound on electronic equipment, but I am unsure that there is any effective difference between perceived volume and actual volume when you are sitting in your lounge rooms at home watching televisionThe point made by some that the volume is not different, that it is just due to sound compression, does not hold water. When this issue was initially raised in this place, the member for Rankin very clearly made the point: We say that if advertisements sound louder, then they are louder. It sounds such an incredibly simple concept. I think we can agree that perceived volume and actual volume are the same thing when sitting watching television. Indeed, if it feels louder, then frankly it is louder. If that is the case, and if the perceived volume is higher due to the artificial manipulation of the sound, the solution seems quite simple: stop compressing the sound. I do not believe that it is the role of this House to determine the technical methods by which the aim of this bill is to be achieved. That task is best performed by the ABA. That is the reason why this bill sets no arbitrary standard for the loudness of television advertising or indeed a technical method by which compliance with that standard is to be achieved. There is a strong level of community support for this initiative. I want to share with the House some of the correspondence I have received regarding this legislation. I received an email on 28 June this year that read:Like many voters I was very pleased to note in the Sydney Daily Telegraph that you are promoting the Quieter Advertising—Happier Homes (Private Members) Bill that will give the ABA power to set standards on the loudness of television advertisements. The yelling and screaming that goes on is an insult to people's intelligence, and I for one, would like to set up one of the worst advertisements and run it constantly for 24 hours in the front room of those responsible, then they would soon back down. This loudness is not warranted, and I for one simply turn to another station and the said station loses one of its viewers. Anyway, congratulations on your worthy efforts. Let us hope that “Shush” in the living room will soon be order of the day.I certainly appreciate the points that this correspondent, a gentleman from the ACT, makes:I read with interest of your proposal to introduce a private members bill to regulate the volume of TV ads. I agree entirely with your proposal and I hope you are successful.I have received a letter of support from a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council:You have my entire support in your efforts to achieve sound controls over advertisements. The use of the technology called crowding makes television ads sound louder even though it may not even be louder using decibels. That can be manipulated by having somebody in the studios controlling sound. They are particularly annoying and it has become my habit to turn the television set to mute when an ad comes on. It is in the interest of viewers and the advertisers that your proposed controls are brought into play.An email from South Australia, directed to Senator Alston but copied to a number of members in this House, said:Dear Senator Alston,A short note to lend support for Qld MP Kirsten Livermore and Tas MP Michelle O'Byrne in their move to change the TV Broadcasting laws to stop the advertising being much louder than the general programs. I have been annoyed by this for several years and have previously complained to the ACA. I therefore feel that, now someone is attempting to fix this, it is important to demonstrate my support for such a move.From Tasmania, I received the following comment:Congratulations on your efforts RE “loud” TV advertisements. Don't be put off by the “techno-gobbledy-gook” the TV networks will feed you, like “compression” etc. The ads are more intrusive and good luck and keep up the good work! I'd be keen to hear of your progress.Another email said:Thankyou for raising the issue of extremely loud advertising on television. This is something that has been driving me nuts for years and it's good to see that something may finally be done about it.And yet another email stated:Just wanted to let you know that I totally agree with your stance on the issue of louder TV ads.I received a letter from Western Australia which said:I refer to a recent newspaper article concerning your proposals to regulate the volume of television advertisements. Myself, my wife and many of my neighbours agree with you and fully support your actions. If we can assist in any way to help you achieve your aims please let me know.If you are successful, the mute button on my remote control will be grateful and will enjoy a well-earned retirement. Yours in anticipation of success.And from New South Wales I received these comments:I wish to applaud your comments regarding the volume of TV commercials.With all the knowledge, buttons and dials I cannot believe that this problem is insolvable, so maybe we need to legislate for the volume to be lessened at commercial time to save our ears, sanity and my legs because we don't have a remote control.All those comments I have just read are but a smattering of the correspondence I have received on this issue. They have come from across the country and from many different groups. I wish to thank all those who took the time and interest to write, email, telephone and, on many occasions, visit my office. I do not believe that the bill I am presenting to the House with the support of the member for Capricornia and with the ongoing support of the member for Rankin is onerous for either the broadcasters or the advertising industry; I can assure the House of that. Within this bill there is no intention to achieve a result that will impact on the creative ability of advertisers to deliver high quality advertising. In presenting this legislation to the House, I feel confident that there will be benefits for many in the community, without imposing on our television networks or on those who advertise.The proposal to ensure that television advertising does not unduly impact upon our lives was first raised in the House by the member for Rankin and me in 2000. This bill proposed by me and the member for Capricornia will deliver to all Australian TV viewers, at their clear request, television advertising that does not unnecessarily impact on the quiet of their homes. We have heard that it may be too difficult but, to borrow a phrase from a very good band called REM, `If you believe they put a man on the moon ...' Frankly, given our technological advancement, I do not believe it could be that hard to make ads quieter. That is the intention of the Quieter Advertising—Happier Homes Bill 2001, and I commend it to the House.Bill read a first time.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—In accordance with sessional order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills29684R137029684Bill presented by Mr Kelvin Thomson.12:55:0029684Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2001 is a bill for an act to amend the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992. The intent of this bill is to amend the act to require all employers to remit superannuation guarantee payments on a quarterly rather than an annual basis. This is, of course, a minimum. Employers who currently pay monthly, for example, would be entitled to continue doing so. The bill also makes provision for employers to remit advice to the Australian Taxation Office on a quarterly basis if they have a shortfall in their superannuation guarantee liability. This is to ensure not only that the moneys are paid on a quarterly basis but also that the tax office keeps a quarterly, rather than an annual, watch on companies' superannuation guarantee liabilities.Quarterly superannuation guarantee payment is an idea whose time has come. Labor originally proposed quarterly payments back in 1992, when we introduced the superannuation guarantee. At that time, we agreed to annual payments to give employers time to settle in. Most employers are now compliant and pay more frequently than annually. Many pay quarterly or even monthly. They should not be at a competitive disadvantage compared with the small number of employers who do not pay their workers' super so conscientiously. The government has admitted that the amount of outstanding superannuation guarantee payments is in the order of $76 million. The tax office received some 8,000 complaints regarding superannuation guarantee compliance in 1999 and 800 employers paid no superannuation at all in that year. So we believe this is a significant problem. Interestingly, the government has acknowledged that quarterly superannuation might be a good idea. I draw the attention of the House to a media release on 8 August from Senator Lyn Allison, the spokesperson for superannuation for the Australian Democrats, who indicated that, in the course of the debate on the superannuation choice legislation, the government had agreed to amend that legislation to require quarterly rather than annual payment of superannuation contributions. Senator Allison indicated in the Senate that the Democrats had been engaged in discussions with the government for more than a year and had reached an accommodation on the framework of the choice regime. She said one of that matters that came up in the discussion was that `quarterly payments would be required, instead of the current annual payments'. She also said: ... the huge fund of so-called `lost accounts' is to a large degree created by the fact that no employer is required to make payments more often than annually. Many do pay quarterly, and some pay monthly, but the payments of the vast majority of workers out there are made annually and, of course, if a business is having financial difficulties, it very often happens that workers' entitlements are not paid for a whole 12 months, if the company goes bust.I would endorse Senator Allison's comments concerning the question of lost accounts. The last time I looked there was something like $2 billion in accounts that have not been located as far as the fund member is concerned. A big part of that problem is people changing their address in the course of the 12 months and becoming lost, as it were, to the employers. They are of course legally entitled to reclaim that money. It sits there in accounts and we hope that they do reclaim that money but, where members cannot be traced, it does present a potential problem.What we had here was the government agreeing with the Democrats that quarterly superannuation contributions ought to be mandated. Of course, the superannuation choice legislation fell over and did not pass—there was a dispute between the Democrats and the government about superannuation for same-sex couples—but the significant thing was that the government has acknowledged that quarterly superannuation is a good idea. There is no necessary link between quarterly superannuation payments and choice of superannuation fund. That link is entirely artificial. The fact that the superannuation choice legislation has fallen over should not be an excuse for the government not to introduce quarterly superannuation payments. The government ought to be supporting this private member's bill that I have introduced; or, if it thinks that it could be improved on, it should introduce its own bill in the knowledge that Labor will support it.I have had drawn to my attention over the past few years all too many cases where people have missed out on their legitimate entitlements as a result of a number of superannuation guarantee compliance issues, one of them being the frequency of payments. Just a few days ago, the member for Kingsford-Smith passed on to me a matter from his electorate. Mr Patrick O'Keeffe, of Kingsford, wrote to the member for Kingsford-Smith after contacting the tax office and the Commonwealth Ombudsman and being advised by them that not only had they not provided a result but it was unlikely that he would ever be paid. Mr O'Keeffe started working for a company called Marketrak Pty Ltd in July 1996. In the three years he was there, he and other employees were constantly assured by their employer, Mr McCarey, that super was being taken care of, despite the fact that they had never received any statements. In 1997 Mr O'Keeffe put in a formal complaint to the tax office. When he contacted the tax office to follow it up, he found that they were using outdated information about the company, so he provided them with updated information. After another 18 months of what he describes as `absolutely no action', he contacted the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office. He said that initially they were helpful but subsequently they told him that there were thousands of these sorts of cases and that the tax office `would not prosecute cases for small amounts of money because it cost them too much to go to court'. As Mr O'Keeffe said, `Small amounts for them maybe, but three years super to me.'Mr O'Keeffe was very concerned that he had been asking his employer about his entitlements and had been given excuses such as, `I'm waiting for a signature' or `It's with the accountant.' Mr O'Keeffe said that there has never been an account for him or for the other employees of Marketrak and that some 15 people are still owed money. Mr O'Keeffe said, `There are obviously thousands of these cases where people are not only having their lawful entitlements denied to them but the government departments which are supposedly to redress this have an unstated policy not to even bother.'I noticed in reports from the John Laws program that some callers have indicated that their superannuation entitlements were not being paid, including companies such as Yost Technologies where employer superannuation contributions had not been paid. Mr Laws expressed concern—correctly, in my view—about this set of circumstances and said that government action is needed to make sure workers' superannuation entitlements are met. At the time I introduced the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2000, which subsequently lapsed, workers from the former Wide Bay Brickworks in Bundaberg had lost very substantial superannuation contributions, of the order of $415,000. They were so concerned about this issue that they drove from Bundaberg to Canberra to support that private member's bill. Their enthusiasm is to their great credit. People such as their AWU organiser and Mr Trevor Graham organised the visit and continue to take a very active interest in the question of the payment of superannuation entitlements. They are concerned about frequency of entitlements and the fact that, when the Wide Bay Brickworks in Bundaberg went into receivership, the workers lost over two years of superannuation. They have also been concerned about the secrecy provisions and the fact that the tax office would not provide anything other than the most basic details about what was happening with their superannuation money. They have also been scandalised that the former owners of the Wide Bay Brickworks have been walking around Bundaberg with no prosecution action taken—apparently getting off scot-free. The message is, they say, `What sort of signal does this send to employers generally?'I think most of us have had experience in our electorates of people being caught in this way. In my own electorate of Wills, the workers at the Coburg Dyeworks had a similar situation happen to them. The administrator terminated the 61 workers at the Coburg factory in March last year, and the superannuation and other entitlements that they stood to lose were of the order of $650,000. The government has introduced an employee entitlements scheme, and Labor has argued that this scheme is inadequate. One inadequacy is that it makes no provision for superannuation whatsoever. It is capped in relation to other entitlements, and we have some concerns about that, but there is no provision at all for superannuation. Indeed, it is the case that the only company where superannuation got paid after the company went bust was National Textiles. It helps to have a brother who is Prime Minister in these circumstances; otherwise, when it comes to superannuation, you are on your own.A variety of other cases have been drawn to my attention over the years. Ms Lara Sharp started working for Baywaves Family Haircare in September 1994. She regularly followed up the question of superannuation with the Australian Taxation Office, but was informed that nothing could be done regarding her superannuation for 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000. Understandably, she is angry about that situation. She says that ample warning was given to the tax office and proper compliance work should have been undertaken. Similarly, when the Chaucers Reception Centre in Melbourne—associated with J.B. and T.M. Catering—went into liquidation, superannuation guarantee entitlements were unpaid. People such as Mia Fenner-Bailey were owed over $2,500 in superannuation. When Ms Fenner-Bailey made inquiries, she found that her pay cheques said that the superannuation was being paid to National Mutual, which has since been taken over by AXA. When inquiries were made of AXA, they advised that they had no superannuation policy for her. So, to be candid, it would appear to be a matter of fraud: the pay cheque says that this money is being paid into a certain superannuation fund when it is not. As I said, many other cases of a similar character have been brought to my attention and the attention of other members. I consulted widely prior to the introduction of this bill, and I am very pleased to have received an overwhelmingly positive response. For example, the Victorian Treasurer John Brumby said:... the Victorian Government is supportive of the general thrust of the proposed bill and we see no unintended consequences arising from its passage.Helen Martin, the Vice President of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia said that the institute `supports the policy intent of the proposed bill to require payment of SG contributions at least quarterly'. Philippa Smith, the Chief Executive Officer of ASFA, the largest superannuation body, said: As you are aware, this has been an issue of great concern to ASFA for a considerable period of time. Similarly, the Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia said:The proposal to require employers to remit Superannuation contributions quarterly is consistent with the previous ICAA submission to Parliament and therefore supported by the ICAA.Greg Sword, the General Secretary of the National Union of Workers, said:Our view is that the proposed amendment would be welcome ... our view is that those employers who may be affected by the amendment are those who should be affected.But it goes beyond those people to statements made by, for example, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, who said:Smaller debts paid more frequently are probably going to be beneficial to both employer and the employee. Indeed, in a Senate committee report tabled in March 2000, three government senators supported quarterly superannuation contributions. I urge the House to support this bill.Bill read a first time. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with sessional order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business296872968713:10:0029687Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I move:That this House:(1) acknowledges that equality of opportunity is fundamental to a fair society and that a high-quality education for all young people is necessary for achieving equality of opportunity;(2) agrees that many young people in disadvantaged communities are being denied a high-quality education and therefore an equal opportunity in life;(3) calls on the Government to implement needs-based funding policies for government and non-government schools;(4) endorses early intervention, including reading recovery programs, in remedying educational disadvantage;(5) supports government and non-government schools in disadvantaged communities achieving educational excellence; and(6) expresses its alarm that Federal Government spending on education as a proportion of GDP is no higher than in the early 1990s.How can we say we live in a civilised society when the children in this country who most need education resources get the least? When I talk about education resources, I talk about not only government funds but also the support from parents and citizens and parents and friends associations. When you add those funds together with donations to schools, it is very clear that the children in disadvantaged areas receive the least support from the community in terms of their educational opportunity. Back in 1891 when the striking shearers decided to establish a political wing of the labour movement, they said that a fundamental reason for that decision was that they wanted to ensure that their children got a decent education. At that time, the children of the squattocracy got a decent education but the children of the shearers and the other working men and women of Australia tended to miss out. Gough Whitlam's program in the lead-up to the 1972 election was built on the foundation of `positive equality'. It was built on the foundation of equal opportunity through a decent education for all children, regardless of the incomes of their parents. Indeed, under the previous Labor governments, the Hawke and Keating governments, the year 12 retention rate doubled from 36 per cent to 72 per cent in the period 1983 to 1996. Unfortunately, under the present coalition government, the year 12 retention rate is no higher now than it was in the early 1990s. In other words, progress has stalled. There are a number of reasons for that, but one of the reasons for it is that the effort being made by this government to provide decent, interesting and challenging schooling for children has fallen short of the mark. But of most concern is the inadequate attention being paid to the education of children in disadvantaged areas. I acknowledge that some progress has been made in some Aboriginal communities under special programs, but the federal government's efforts in literacy and numeracy in disadvantaged areas generally has been weak. It is fine to fund the testing for literacy and numeracy of children in the early years but it is vitally important that funding also flows to remedy the problems identified by that testing, and that is where the weakness exists. In terms of policy, we need to reach back to the very early years if we are going to make sure that children in disadvantaged communities get a decent education. A lot of it is related to their home environment. There are, in fact, cases where the only book in the homes of children from disadvantaged areas is a telephone book. We need to enrich the experience of children from the very early years until they get to school—and then beyond—so that they arrive at school ready to learn. That brings forward the issue of preschool education. Our preschool education system in Australia is way below that of other comparable countries in the OECD. And it is the children in disadvantaged areas, not the children in the more affluent areas, who miss out on the preschool education. So extra effort is needed in preschools. But, if we are going to get real results, we need to go back even further to such programs as home visiting and parenting programs—the sorts of programs that have been articulated and advocated by the member for Lilley.If students miss out early on reading, it is a matter of commonsense—but also a matter of research findings—that they then become disengaged because they cannot participate in the classes. They either drop out, effectively, or they engage in bullying. Professor Peter Hill's work has shown that children who do not get good literacy education early on are very hard to help in the subsequent middle years. So there must be a fresh and strong emphasis on needs based funding. In this area money is the answer, together with the professional development of teachers and innovative teaching methods. As part of an inquiry, of which I think all speakers in this particular debate are members, we visited schools just outside of Hobart. Those schools are in very disadvantaged areas, yet for $6,500 they are achieving tremendous results—empirically testable results that are showing that the kids are really learning. I asked what schools like that could do for $50,000, and they nearly fell out of their chairs to imagine a school getting $50,000. That cannot be seen to be a large amount of money in terms of the good things that can be done for $50,000.Instead of having that sort of debate, we are locked in a puerile debate about the advantages of cutting the top marginal rate of income tax. Having successfully achieved a reduction in the company tax rate—something that Labor supported—we now have business leaders and high income earners saying, `Now that we have this big gap between the top marginal rate of income tax that we pay and the company tax rate, you have got to close that gap by dropping the top marginal rate to save us from ourselves, to save us from engaging in tax avoidance by incorporating.' That is what they want; that is the priority not only of a very large segment of the business community but also of many members of the government, including the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and, most recently, the member for Curtin. That is where they think priorities ought to be. But the fact is that, without investing in the nation's future, companies and industries will face dramatic skill shortages in the future. Wages will go up and they will say that they must have more industrial relations reform to stop wages going up in the face of the skills shortages that they presided over by insisting that the priority be to cut the top marginal rate. Without investing in the nation's future there will be increasing divisions in the Australian society, and a fractured society is an unsafe society. Without investing in the nation's future through education, there will be increasing drug abuse, increasing crime, increasing child abuse and increasing youth suicide. This is a very high price to pay. To neglect investment in the nation's future and, in particular, in a better education for the disadvantaged communities of Australia, all for the benefit of cuts to the top marginal tax rate, is short-sighted in the extreme. And yet that seems to be the priority of the coalition government and many of the coalition backers in big business, including those associated with the recent tax reform process. I think of the words of Barry Jones at the launch of the Knowledge Nation task force report when he said, `If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.' And that is right. What about the cost of increasing drug abuse, increasing crime, increasing child abuse, increasing youth suicide and a more fractured society? Labor is supporting education priority zones in disadvantaged areas specifically to deal with disadvantage in educational opportunities. Labor is supporting professional development of teachers. We are not supporting million-dollar increases in funding for the wealthiest non-government schools. They are Labor's priorities as set against the coalition priority.The coalition's education philosophy is choice, not need. Instead of cutting the top marginal tax rate and spending millions of dollars on the wealthiest non-government schools, the government must recognise its moral responsibility to ensure that children from disadvantaged communities receive a high-quality education, and if this government cannot accept that moral responsibility, the Labor Party certainly does.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later time.13:19:0029689Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—I agree with many of the comments made by the member for Rankin about the equality of opportunity in education. I acknowledge his genuine concern for young people, especially those young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and I share those concerns. It is unfortunate, however, that on some issues he allowed his judgment to be clouded by his politics and by the pressure of the teachers unions—but I will return to that later.One of the distinguishing features of Australia has been the tremendous opportunity that this country provides. With some exceptions, these opportunities have been widely available: a free universally available public education system complemented by the choice provided by non-government schools has been essential in providing this opportunity. The attainment of quality education has always been the most common route out of poverty. So many people raised in disadvantaged circumstances, through application, effort and sound education have been able to establish themselves in satisfying careers and thus provide for themselves and their families a secure future. Equality of educational opportunity is no doubt an essential ingredient in equality of employment opportunity. While all areas of education are important, two areas stand out as being absolutely critical. The first is literacy and numeracy. Figures by the Australian Council for Educational Research, for instance, released in 1997 showed that males with poor literacy and numeracy levels were twice as likely to be unemployed in their late teens as those with average skills or better. A study for the ABS in 1996 showed that the work force participation rate for those tested with poor literacy skills was less than 40 per cent, whereas for those with good or better literacy skills the rate was over 85 per cent. It also showed that unemployment levels were 3.6 per cent for those with excellent literacy skills, five per cent for those with good literacy skills and 18 per cent for those with poor literacy skills. The importance of literacy for employment is absolutely beyond doubt. Accordingly—and this is the important thing—this government has given a high priority to improving levels of literacy and numeracy across the country. Its 1997 National Literacy and Numeracy Plan gained agreement from all states and territories to national assessment and benchmarking for literacy. Contrary to what the member for Rankin said, it involved substantial increased funding: $680 million over four years for early intervention programs, for instance. On top of that, it included another $143 million to help those already out of school who had insufficient literacy skills that were a barrier to them finding gainful employment.In this year's budget, another $36.9 million has been added to the government's National Literacy and Numeracy Plan for the next two years. The important thing is that this government's commitment is working. The latest figures on national numeracy and literacy levels coming out of this benchmarking show that the program is working: 87 per cent of year 3 students gained minimum national standards, compared with just 73 per cent five years ago in 1996. That is, for year 3 students the level of illiteracy— those failing to reach the accepted standard—has fallen from 27 per cent to 13 per cent in the last five years, partly because of the commitment of states but largely because of the commitment of the federal government to tackle literacy problems, to put its money where its mouth is and to provide the funding to do this. By contrast, Labor failed badly in this area. In their 13 years, they did nothing of significance to raise literacy levels across this country. Further, their so-called knowledge nation makes no commitment to improving literacy levels and no commitment to raising those levels for those from disadvantaged areas. The contrast is clear: the coalition government is delivering in basic areas of literacy and numeracy, and these programs are working by raising literacy standards. By contrast, the opposition merely wallow in rhetoric. Under pressure from the education unions, we would probably see Labor's support for the national benchmarking for literacy withdrawn completely.The second critical area in helping people from disadvantaged areas is vocational education and training. Again, the coalition government has been delivering in spades in this area to provide that critical pathway between school and the workplace. The coalition government has strongly supported building those essential links through its focus on vocational education and training. In recent years, we have seen a dramatic growth in the number of school students involved in vocational education and industry based courses while they are at school, thus attaining the essential skills and building their interest in, and often getting a foot in, a career that will be there after school.In 1995 there were only 26,000 students involved in vocational education and training courses in secondary school; in 2000 there were 167,000. That is an increase of more than 500 per cent in the number of secondary school students involved in vocational education and training courses in the last five years under the coalition government. The coalition's commitment to vocational education and training is working and so many of those people from disadvantaged backgrounds are benefiting from these programs. The Jobs Pathway Program, which helps disadvantaged young people move from school into the work force, is working as well. In this year's budget another $95 million was committed over the next four years to help them make that essential link between school and work. Also in this regard, the coalition's emphasis on apprenticeships and traineeships—which again helps those from disadvantaged backgrounds, in fact those across the whole spectrum—has greatly improved opportunities for young people to gain training that will lead to worthwhile careers.In 1996 when we came into office, only 120,000 young people were involved in trade apprenticeships. That is now up to 140,000. More startling, over the last five years the total number in traineeships and apprenticeships has doubled to some 300,000 under this government. That is double the number of people in worthwhile training programs and apprenticeships that will get them into secure careers. The New Apprenticeships system will receive $2 billion in Commonwealth government funding over the next four years. The coalition government is serious about helping all students receive the education they need, in contrast to the Labor government, which really ignored the 70 per cent of students who do not go on to university.I need to make some comments about school funding that really stand in contrast to what we heard from the member for Rankin. The coalition government has delivered substantially increased funding for schools in every budget in the past five years. Direct Commonwealth spending on schools has risen from 0.7 per cent of GDP to 0.8 per cent of GDP, a growing percentage of a rapidly growing GDP, to the point where next year total federal funding for Australian schools will be $5.9 billion, an increase of another seven per cent over this year. I need to make some comments as well about funding for public schools. The misleading information being trotted out by the Labor Party and the teachers unions totally denies the facts about funding for public schools. Direct federal funding for public schools under this government has been rising by about five to six per cent a year. In fact, next year $2.2 billion will be provided directly for public schools, which is 42 per cent higher than in Labor's last year—that is, by next year the coalition government will have delivered an increase of 42 per cent in direct funding for public schools. This year we provided $560 million more than in Labor's last year.Another point that needs to be made is that federal government direct funding for state schools is growing far more rapidly than state funding. In the last two years, the New South Wales government only raised its funding for state schools by around two per cent a year, compared to five to six per cent a year increases from the federal government. We have the appalling situation in New South Wales where, over the last five years, funding for state schools by the state government has fallen from 26 per cent of its total spending to less than 23 per cent. This is an appalling neglect of state schools in New South Wales by the New South Wales government.All of this is in spite of rapidly increased funding from the federal government to the state governments to allow them to fund those schools. In 1999-2000, financial assistance grants from the federal government to the New South Wales government increased by 6.5 per cent, but the New South Wales government gave a paltry 1.9 per cent increase to its state schools. This year the New South Wales government will receive $8.3 billion in GST revenue. It needs to reverse its appalling decline in funding for state schools and raise the funding for public schools. The Commonwealth government's direct funding for state schools has been increasing rapidly. Its indirect funding through financial assistance grants and now through the GST is increasing rapidly as well. The New South Wales government is badly failing the students in our public school system in New South Wales.13:29:0029691Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—I am pleased to support the member for Rankin's motion before the House in relation to education. When it comes to education, this is a very confused government. When you take into account rationale, they do not know the difference between excellence and elitism; they do not know the difference between equal opportunity and equality of outcome. Ample evidence about rationale confusion is provided by examination of the gender equity framework introduced in 1997, the national goals of schooling introduced in 1998 and the current funding of category 1 private schools.When process is taken into account, as the member for Rankin has pointed out, there is no acknowledgment that funding ought to be needs based. That very fact is heightened by the reality that—and ignoring what the member for Macquarie said—in real terms, according to ABS figures, since this government came to office, Commonwealth funding for education has been cut by 20 per cent. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs fulfils a stereotype first described by George Orwell in his famous essay, `Politics and the English language', with his many claims that less is more and more is less. The only real way to measure whether education funding in real terms has risen or fallen is to compare expenditure as a percentage of GDP. When that is done, it is very clear that education expenditure has fallen from 2.2 per cent of GDP to 1.6 per cent of GDP. That is a cut of 20 per cent.But the situation in my home state of South Australia is worse. Since taking power in 1993, the Liberal Olsen government has reduced expenditure on education from 30 per cent of the state budget to 24 per cent. That is a cut of 20 per cent as well. Yet, knowing of these circumstances and the dramatic negative effect they have on poorer communities, this minister and this government have arrogantly increased funding for the most privileged students and families in Australia to the tune of $105 million. Then they have the hide to stand in this place and defend that evil behaviour as a win for equity and choice. When what is learned in schools is taken into account, this federal government is next to useless. Highlighting the fact that literacy and numeracy is a problem in Australia— first identified by Labor, by the way—the government has the gall to claim credit for improved learning outcomes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Recent opportunities to observe good schools in Australia in the last 12 months have clearly shown where any credit for improved learning outcomes comes from—and it is not from the federal government. Schools have improved learning outcomes with quality structured and active learning education programs, created by good teachers and good principals. But these have come at a cost. Poorer schools have had to sacrifice much of their expressive arts programs and enrichment programs. More affluent schools have had to use fundraising money in order to employ additional staff. These schools, the good schools, wastepaper-bin the non-policies that come top down under the stewardship of this foolish government. Unfortunately, education is engulfed by silliness from time to time; however, it has become an epidemic with this government.Take two policies introduced during the tenure of this government. In 1997 the gender equity framework was introduced in Australian schools. Amazingly, this framework was introduced without any reference whatsoever to any quantitative research. In 1998 this top-down foolishness continued with the Adelaide declaration of the national goals of schooling. When talking about convoluted nonsense, this is a classic example. It could not distinguish the difference between rationale, process and task. No wonder good schools, good principals and good teachers sacked the government's non-policies and got on with the job. The last point I would like to raise is early intervention. There is no doubt whatsoever— and there is quantitative evidence to back this up—that, in determining the future success or failure of all students, the most significant factor will be the schooling a child receives between the ages of seven and 11. This is the worst funded group of children in Australia, as the member for Rankin pointed out. Also, schooling is more important than gender, race, socioeconomic background, nationality or religion in terms of success for students' outcomes. If the education program of a good school is examined, it will have the following characteristics: the learning program will be structured; it will allow for active learning; it will be based on both qualitative and quantitative research; it will take into account aggregation of information as well as disaggregation; it will acknowledge the arguments of both nature and nurture, of analysis and synthesis, of continuous assessment and examination systems, of cooperation and competition, and so on. It will not—as this government has done—exclude, deliberately or unintentionally, Australian children from excellence and equality of opportunity because of gender, race and socioeconomic background, as so often has happened under the stewardship of this government.13:34:0029692Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10— From the outset, I have to endorse Mr Emerson's belief in equality of opportunity for all young people, particularly in education, because this is one of the key philosophies of the Liberal Party and its ideology. I joined the Liberal Party and represent the people of Petrie because I believe that the Liberal Party, being part of the coalition government, actions its belief through policy. Every Australian child should have access to quality education that promotes and encourages a child's success, and they are the fundamental principles behind the government's education legislation. Because that legislation reflects the socioeconomic composition of school communities, schools in disadvantaged communities have access to funds to provide quality education and promote equality of opportunity. To penalise a community because the only school is a non-government school is detrimental to Mr Emerson's philosophy of providing a high quality education for all as a precursor for achieving equality of opportunity. But that is exactly what the Labor Party wants to do. Only last week Simon Crean said on radio that his government—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— The Deputy Leader of the Opposition. 9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition; excuse me, Mr Deputy Speaker—should they be elected, would put more money into public education. But at what detriment and to whose detriment? The very people that his Labor colleague is targeting in this motion here today. I support the government's education legislation because it delivers to many young people in disadvantaged communities—and that is what we are talking about here today. Over three-quarters of federal funding for non-government schools goes to schools serving needy communities, such as Catholic parish schools, low fee Christian schools, Lutheran schools and independent indigenous schools. The Labor Party wants to reverse that funding. Young people in disadvantaged communities who attend government schools are at the mercy of their state government's ability to channel federal funding where needed most. Under the government's education legislation, schools are given more power to decide what students have the greatest need for support and how to address the specific needs of students through the funding received. I only hope that in Queensland those students in disadvantaged communities actually get to see those funds. However, we may never know because the state minister for education in Queensland, Anna Bligh, has refused to provide details of how the funding was spent last year and how $440 million will be spent in the 2001-02 financial year. All state and territory education ministers agreed to a national literacy and numeracy plan, and they recognised the need for early intervention and remedial strategies. But this program seeks to ensure that all students attain at least the essential literacy and numeracy skills that they require to make progress in their schooling.However, again in July this year, Ms Bligh voted with the other Labor state education ministers to reject the Commonwealth's proposal to tell each of the parents the literacy and numeracy achievement of their children against national benchmarks. They reported on the aggregated data but they failed to be held accountable on the twin issues of quality of education and equality of opportunity. It is all very well and good for the member for Rankin to come in here today and to call for funding and strategies that achieve educational equality, but it is a very different thing when his state Labor colleagues do exactly the opposite and will not be held accountable for their reporting procedures and will not increase state funding.The federal government supports the achievement of educational excellence for all students, and the Queensland state government has failed to match this support. At the time of the Queensland budget, Ms Bligh and Mr Beattie took pride in announcing $10 million for centres of excellence across Queensland. But they forgot to mention that those centres—one of which, the Redcliffe State High School, is in my electorate—are all federally funded. Educational excellence is achieved through increased funding for students, resources and teachers, and the coalition government spends over $660 million more each year on education than was the case in 1996—an increase of 52 per cent in Queensland since 1996—and we have committed $80 million to quality education.I want to highlight another factor, as OECD countries were mentioned today: the spending from all sources on primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education at 3.8 per cent of GDP is above the OECD country mean of 3.7 per cent. While the federal government commits record levels of funding to education, it is limited by the contribution by the state governments that hinder that average, and they are doing nothing to improve the quality of education for this country.13:39:0029693Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—We have just heard from the member for Petrie the classic Liberal government speech on education: the rhetoric of choice is used to hide the reality of need and, when there is a problem in the education sector, you look around for someone to blame—generally in question time it is the education unions but, in this debate, it has been state Labor governments. What the member for Petrie does not understand is that the last thing that this government does is distribute education moneys on the basis of need. This government, for its funding for private schools, has adopted a flawed index, the so-called SES model, which does not deliver on the basis of need. We know that model is flawed, because it disproportionately delivers to category 1 schools—that is, wealthy schools. It is only in respect of the funding of those schools that Labor has made any announcements about varying that funding. So it is not true to say, as the member for Petrie says, that low-fee Catholic schools, Anglican schools, Lutheran schools or community Christian schools will be affected by Labor's plan to make that funding more equitable. The member for Petrie, in looking at that index, should perhaps pay regard to some of the details. We know that that measure is flawed because it proceeds off the base of average recurrent costs for schools—that is, there is no differential for the additional cost of delivering education in remote and rural Australia. So that is problem No. 1 with the index. Problem No. 2 with the index is that it uses, as a proxy for parental income, the income of the census collector districts from which parents come. We know that model does not work when you are talking about schools that draw their population from widely dispersed geographic areas—for example, schools that have boarders—and we know that model does not work when you are talking about highly differentiated communities, that is, communities where wealth and poverty coexist, and that is, of course, the landscape of our inner cities. So that model is not working to distribute funding on the basis of need, and we need to move the debate away from that kind of rhetoric and look at the substance of the motion.The substance of the motion is about delivering to schools, whether they be government or non-government, on the basis of need—that is, getting a Commonwealth-state agreement to address educational disadvantage, which might spring from socioeconomic status, from gender or from remoteness. We need to have an accurate measure of need and then use it to ensure that we are distributing funds, which do matter, to the areas where they are going to do the most good.The debate is leaving this government behind: as it is left defending its flawed SES index, we know that there is research, becoming available in Australia to the community that cares about education, which is challenging us to move on in terms of how we define need, and challenging us to realise that in fact using a socioeconomic status may in itself be a flawed idea. We know from this research that the questions of social disadvantage and economic disadvantage are two different things. I refer in that regard to the recently released material, a study entitled Educational performance amongst school students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds by Gianni Zappala and Gillian Considine. That research was reported in the Age at the weekend and has been available to the parliamentary committee on which I serve. That research is telling us that, even if you look at a cohort of students who all come from financially disadvantaged backgrounds, there are wide variations in the educational attainment within that cohort, which can be explained in part by the cultural foundation of that family—the way in which that family values education—and in part by the educational attainment of the parents.This research is actually challenging us to move forward, to look to the future, to start dealing with the fact that social disadvantage and economic disadvantage may be two different things, and to view our definitions of need in an even more sophisticated way. In regard to that research reported at the weekend, Professor Bob Birrell actually made a comment about the area which I represent in this parliament, which is of course Melbourne's western suburbs. He said:If you talk to teachers in the western suburbs, they'll tell you there's no cultural tradition among these (Anglo) families to encourage their kids to aspire to go beyond high school to university ... If we're going to encourage a much higher participation rate at university, we need a cultural shift in attitudes, a different orientation to parenting.The motion actually deals with that matter too, which is the need for us to be intervening at an earlier stage and to be offering parenting support so that, when we are building the foundations for education, we are building them fairly.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. Statements by Members296952969513:45:0029695Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00— Last week I was pleased to attend two functions involving school students which showed how talented they are in the fields of music and acting. This year, Dale Fest celebrated its 25th anniversary. It brings primary schools together and involves them in choral singing. I want to congratulate the students, parents and teachers of the following primary schools: Kingsley, Willandra, Byford, Kelmscott, Westfield, Armadale and Gwynne Park. Their performances were excellent and everybody had a great time. The special performance of the Kelmscott High School Jazz Band was spectacular. The Dale Fest plays an important role in our community and all involved should feel a great deal of pride in their work. On Friday evening, I saw the Cecil Andrews Performing Arts Group perform the Klynnk Conspiracy. Congratulations to Russell Pusey, Naomi Hullett, Joe Bonini, Heather Cargill, Kaylee Stevenson, Aaron Cain, Corrine Hands, Amanda McNamara, Loren Raj, Candice Edwards, Sarah Archibald, Danica Newnham, Emma Holter, Michelle Breckon, Ashylyn Czoloszynski, Chloe Baker, Rebecca Horvath, Chelsea Delaney, Cassandra D'Monte, Brooke Jansz, Juanita Johnstone, Justin Franklin, Sophie Paull, Kara Carver, Clinton Turner, Tamara Bozic, Toni Edwards, Gemma Kingston, Jason Chong, Elizabeth Crowe, Brendan Kist, Renee Margetts and Matthew Urbas. The students put on a wonderful show and everyone involved should be very proud of their achievements.2969513:46:0029695Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise today to speak on a matter that seriously raises doubts about the Beattie government's antidiscrimination law and Premier Beattie's commitment to multiculturalism. The Brisbane City Council has given approval for a 24-hour petrol station to be built next to the Evergreen Taoist Temple and retirement village at Deagon on Brisbane's northside. The Queensland Fire Rescue Authority suggests that it would be a safety risk for the temple community to continue practising their religious ceremonies once the station has been built. The temple appealed against the petrol station's approval and wrote to their local councillor in January, who admits that she did not reply to the appeal. She also claims that she was unaware of any danger posed by the council's decision, despite her involvement in ceremonies and her attendance, particularly at Chinese lunar New Year celebrations, in which I have actively participated in the past as well.The council deputy mayor and the Labor colleague of Peter Beattie have even suggested that the temple abandon their use of fireworks and fire burning ceremonies. These practices are part of their daily religious rituals and the council's decision raises doubts about the validity of the Beattie government's legislation which Mr Beattie himself publicly said would `balance an individual's right to freedom of speech with the right of all Queenslanders to live free from racial and religious vilification'. Those rights have been violated by a poor decision of Brisbane City Council. The Taoist community is not free to practise its religion, a right guaranteed by our—(Time expired)2969513:47:0029695O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I would like to use this opportunity to tell the story of a small town's battle against privatisation—a battle that was long and where there were casualties, but where the rewards were particularly great. It was a battle against the often invisible enemy of privatisation.Lilydale is a town that fought for years to get television services and, given that it is just 20 kilometres outside Launceston, it was not an unreasonable expectation. For years, the people campaigned for a tower, for a site and to overcome legal barriers to land use. Just when victory was in their sights, the federal government privatised the National Transmission Authority, leaving the community without any guarantee of finishing the job. Through their hard work, we were able to convince the government to fund the project, and since then we have addressed planning issues and endured wet weather that delayed the process. However, last week the community won and got access to television for the first time. It is a great victory for that community and they deserve full congratulations. It is a great victory and a great example of a small town winning the battle over privatisation. 2969613:48:0029696Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—The month of July saw the passing of one of Blacktown's best known identities, Stanley Beecroft OAM. Stan lived in Blacktown for 60 years. Stan and his wife Dorrie, who preceded him, had five sons. Both Stan and Dorrie were active in the community and parish life. Stan worked long and hard for the St Vincent de Paul Society, being a member for 40 years, and he was involved in activities which included being regional treasurer for 10 years, visitation of Blacktown Hospital every Sunday morning for 25 years, and raising finance through bottle collections to assist the Scheyville Migrant Camp.Stan was responsible for the first major financial initiative of the parish through his organisation of a boxing tournament in 1948. In 1989, Stan's efforts in working for the community were acknowledged when he was awarded the Order of Australia Medal. Rugby league played a major part in Stan's life, being treasurer of the Blacktown Rugby League Club from 1939 to 1943, and he was the keenest Parramatta supporter you could find. Stan was a life member of the Blacktown Agricultural Society and successfully exhibited poultry both locally and throughout the state with breeds of Rhode Island Whites, pit games and bantams. Stan was an active member of the Australian Labor Party and worked tirelessly for the establishment of Blacktown Hospital. I knew Stan personally for the past 40 years, and I can confirm that Blacktown has lost one of its finest citizens.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I apologise to the member for Corangamite. Because of his role as government whip, I thought he was, as he often does, standing in the chamber not seeking the call. I call the member for Corangamite.2969613:50:0029696McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—The federal government is acting to improve services in regional areas. The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, recently displayed his commitment by accepting my invitation to visit the heartland of the electorate of Corangamite. Whilst in Western Victoria, he consulted with local residents in an open community forum about communications issues. We are seeing some results of this discussion.The federal government's television black spot fund has now been agreed to to fund better television reception for Anglesea and Aireys Inlet, towns that are situated along that great Australian icon the Great Ocean Road. The Surf Coast Shire is now expected to develop a fully costed budget to establish new transmission sites. Once this budget is in, the size of the grant will be decided. The shire has been very active in seeking to improve local people's TV reception. I am delighted to have been able to keep the focus on that application within the government. The black spot funding offer is to be financed from funds obtained under the partial sale of the federal government's stake in Telstra. Tourism potential in the district will be improved by better reception in the accommodation facilities. The people of Anglesea and Aireys Inlet have been labouring under very difficult television reception and television reception is set to improve for these local people. The move to improve local television coverage shows that the federal government is getting results for people in regional Australia.2969613:51:0029696Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—I have pleasure in advising the House that Mr Rupert Loof, who turned 101 last week, on 15 August, is doing extremely well. The relevance to this House is very obvious. Mr Loof came to Canberra in 1927, when he joined the staff of the Senate. After being Usher of the Black Rod for some years, he was Clerk of the Senate from 1955 until his retirement in 1965. In 1962 he was made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire. He was a very great inventor, artist and sportsman. He was an accomplished painter, poet, potter and composer in his earlier years, and he was an organist at the Presbyterian Church of St Andrews, Forrest, for many years. He played A grade tennis, and he played golf at Royal Canberra Golf Club until he was 92. His wife of 66 years, Margaret, died in 1995. They had three children, five grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren. On the occasion of his 101st birthday at St Andrews Village in Hughes, Canberra, Mr Loof had pleasure in saying that he was feeling very strong at 101 not out and that he was looking forward to getting as far as 107. When he came to Canberra from Melbourne by motorbike in 1927, it took him three days and it involved his riding through rivers. He then had a very established career here, and at one time shared a house with Harold White. (Time expired)2969713:53:0029697Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Today I want to comment briefly on the recent decision by countries in the United Nations to vote for the Sudan to join the United Nations Human Rights Committee in preference to the United States, which was previously a member state of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. All members would agree that the United States has been at the forefront of standing up for the human rights of individuals across the world for a long period—for 100 years, in most cases. It would probably be the most consistent country, along with Australia, in standing up for the human rights of individuals. That is in comparison to the Sudan, whose government continues to persecute Christians in the south of that country, which has led to a tremendous influx of refugees across borders into Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia, and it does so in a most barbaric, savage fashion. For the Sudan to be voted onto the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations is a travesty of justice. The Sudan should be condemned for its persecution of the Christian minority in the south. I hope that the House will join me in wishing that the United Nations would seriously look at reforming itself when such egregious examples can occur which shake our confidence in the foundations of the United Nations. (Time expired)2969713:55:0029697Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Two years ago, I spoke in this House about the 128th commemoration service of St Paul's Anglican Church, Burwood, and the message of the preacher on that occasion, Reverend Father Richard Hurford. On 29 July 2001, at the invitation of the Rector of St Paul's, Reverend Father John Kohler, my wife Adriana and I attended the 130th anniversary commemoration service. The preacher at that Festival Eucharist was the very well respected priest and religious writer Reverend Father James Murray. Father Murray spoke of the age we live in today where technology is God. He reminded the congregation that, in relation to the Church, we are often more concerned with beautification than sanctification. In speaking about today's age, Father Murray said that the warm stone and coloured glass of St Paul's can give us a false sense of continuity and security of an age past. He said that today's celebration is a crisis—a crisis about evangelism, conversion and our final destination for all. Mr Speaker, Father Murray is right. We must be less concerned with the aesthetics of church architecture in today's age. `Church' means the mystical body of Christ, not sandstone and stained-glass windows. Preoccupation with materialism makes a false god of material things whilst distracting attention from proclaiming The Word through evangelism by building faith in people's hearts.2969713:56:0029697Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—In the adjournment debate on 9 August, I spoke about workers' entitlements and I wanted parliament to consider a different proposal. To give some background, when a business goes into liquidation, a receiver may be appointed and a list of creditors is drawn up. There is a pecking order of who receives how much. Under present arrangements, lenders, usually banks and the Australian Taxation Office, get first grab at the remaining resources of the business. Under my proposal, employees get first call before the banks and the Australian Taxation Office, and perhaps supplemented by the taxpayer in the unlikely event that there is enough to pay out the workers. Who would reject such a proposal, and why? Whilst it would set a precedent in bankruptcy laws, we should not be afraid of setting a precedent when legitimate workers' entitlements are concerned. The ATO might—I repeat `might'—lose some income, but that would be more than balanced by not having to pay out under the present system supported by the federal coalition and the South Australian state government. The banks would not like it because they no longer would have first grab before the employees, but they are big enough to look after themselves. It may actually encourage banks to better manage their lending practices so as to reduce the number of bankruptcies. It may also encourage banks to manage the way they liquidate assets to ensure they still get a good return at the end of the liquidation. Too often we have had fire sales that do not get the best return on assets because there is little incentive for banks to get the best price when they get first grab. (Time expired)2969813:58:0029698Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00— You might recall, Mr Speaker, that the last time parliament sat the Minister for Forestry and Conservation accused the Leader of the Opposition of `prolixidity'. I had never heard of the word before! Perhaps he meant `prolixity'. I was interested to hear an interview which he gave on Radio 3GG, when in response to a question about extending the terms of reference of the royal commission into the building industry to the timber industry, he said, `Well, I think the matter, once I've seen that letter worthy of forwarding to the commission, I don't know just, you know, how much of it, that's an issue for consideration. I mean, I just couldn't understand,' blah, blah. I've heard more eloquent words from characters on Planet of the Apes. I have to say that when it comes to `prolixidity' the Minister for Forestry and Conservation takes the cake!2969813:59:0029698Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—Last Sunday week, my son, who is an AFP officer serving with the United Nations in East Timor, rang me about a little East Timorese boy who had fallen out of a tree two years ago and sustained such serious injuries that he became a paraplegic. He was given a wheelchair that was made by some peacekeepers, and it had fallen to pieces. My son rang me to ask whether I would be able to obtain a wheelchair for that little fellow. Fortunately, because of the generosity of two of my constituents, I have been able to get two wheelchairs. I am today packing up a wheelchair, with the help of the Australian Federal Police, to be sent to that little boy so that he can get around. That little chap has been isolated from his friends because he cannot move. I pay homage to those who, through their humane contribution, have been able to make that little boy's life a lot easier. I thank you for the opportunity of raising this matter in parliament today.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Condolences296982969814:00:0029698SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I inform the House of the death on Thursday, 16 August 2001 of Mr Reginald Gillard, OAM, a member of this House for the division of Macquarie from 1975 to 1980. As a mark of respect to the memory of Mr Gillard, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.Honourable members having stood in their places—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the House.14:01:0029698Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Very briefly, on indulgence, I would like to record my sorrow at the death of Reg Gillard, who was the Liberal member for Macquarie. Elected as one of the famously called `oncers' in 1975, he remained a member until 1980 when he lost his seat in that election. He was a lovable, dedicated person who worked very hard for his constituents. He was a wonderful family man and a great colleague. I enjoyed many convivial hours with him and with many others elected in 1975. I extend my sympathy to his family, and I am very sorry to have learnt of his death. 14:02:0029699Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—On indulgence, I join the opposition's sentiments to those that are offered by the government in this regard. I never knew Mr Gillard, as the Prime Minister obviously did at that point in his life. He was active in the RSL, in Legacy, in local government and was eight times mayor of Lithgow. He was awarded an OAM for his community services on the strength of all that and of his parliamentary representation. The opposition also extends to his wife, Irene, son, Craig, two daughters Robyn and Louise, and six grandchildren our sympathy.14:02:0029699Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—On indulgence, I also add on behalf of the Lithgow community my condolences to the Gillard family. Reg had been a very strong advocate for the Lithgow community for many years. Indeed, his community representation speaks for itself, particularly in later years when he was such an outspoken supporter of the aged care sector in Lithgow, especially in relation to Cooinda Homes. On behalf of the electorate, I express my condolences.14:03:0029699Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—On indulgence, I will briefly add my condolences to the family and friends of Mr Reg Gillard. He represented energetically and with great commitment and passion the seat of Macquarie in the days when it was much larger than it is now. While I never had the pleasure of meeting Mr Gillard, I have been told by many people of his exceptional commitment to, and hard work for, the area, and he has been fondly remembered by many in my electorate.14:03:0029699Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—On indulgence, I would like to add my condolences to all of those comments already made. I knew Reg Gillard for many years. Not only as a field officer for the Liberal Party did I spend a great deal of time with Reg Gillard and his wife, Irene, but also in later years he was a great mentor for me when I decided to go into politics. He was a person I respected. He made an enormous contribution to the community of Lithgow, and I have an enormously deep respect for him and his family. I am saddened to hear of his passing away and offer my condolences to his family.14:04:0029699Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism10—On indulgence, I would also like to add my respects to Reg Gillard's family. Reg was the member for Macquarie when Lindsay was incorporated in the electorate of Macquarie. On my election to parliament, he rang me to give me some wonderful words of wisdom which he expressed with his inevitable humour. I always remember him for his sense of humour. He had a great way of expressing political life and things that happen to you, as he foresaw on my entry into parliament. Certainly, a lot of electors in the electorate of Lindsay would also be mourning his passing. I pass my respects to his family.Questions Without Notice296992969914:05:0029699Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given your claim that enough federal money is being spent on health, are you aware that a new report by Australia's top radiation oncologists highlights the dramatic shortage of radiotherapy machines in Australia? Doesn't this report also show that many of the machines in our public hospitals are more than 10 years old and in need of replacement? Prime Minister, what positive solution will you be proposing to provide our hospitals with the capital they need to upgrade and expand their essential cancer services to meet international benchmarks?29699Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. What I say about federal spending on health is as follows: with our $2.5 billion private health insurance incentive, we have saved and indeed resuscitated private health insurance in Australia. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that you voted against that. The Australian Labor Party voted against saving Australia's private health insurance system. It only passed through the Senate— PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. My question was specifically related to radiotherapy—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. He was answering a question on health. He had been speaking for 40 seconds—hardly long enough to be deemed to be other than relevant to the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition asked me my attitude towards federal spending on health and I am telling the Leader of the Opposition that we have devoted $2½ billion a year to a private health insurance tax rebate which the Labor Party voted against, and it only passed through the Senate with the support of Senator Harradine after the last election. We have increased by 28 per cent in real terms the federal money going to the states under the Australian health care agreements. We have done those two things and the benefits of those decisions will be ongoing—they do not end at the end of this calendar year. Into the future there will be rising amounts of federal help for health, both in relation to private health insurance and also in relation to public hospitals.But we have done something else that the Labor Party did not support either and that the Labor Party is pledged to roll back if it gets into government: we have introduced a goods and services tax. The great virtue of the goods and services tax for public health is that over the years the states will have more money to spend on their hospitals. Here is a man who says he is the friend of the public hospital, yet he wants to reduce the capacity of the states to fund their public hospitals in the future. As I said to the South Australian Liberal Party at the weekend, he who argues to roll back the GST is arguing to reduce public services; he who argues to roll back the GST, if he is not arguing to reduce public services, is arguing to increase income tax. The GST is a tax that will grow in its receipts with the growth in the economy. Unlike the wholesale sales tax that the Labor Party wanted to keep, the GST revenue will rise as the years go by. The state governments will have more money and they will spend that money on public hospitals and public schools.It passes very strange to me that the Labor Party, which always puts a warm embrace around its commitment to public hospitals and public schools, wants to take away the revenue `iron lung' which will provide all of those services with enormous help as the years go by. My answer to the Leader of the Opposition is that we have provided more money not only for private health insurance and saved it, despite the best efforts of the Labor Party to stop us, but also for public hospitals. And through the GST we are providing the states of Australia with the wherewithal to provide more money for their hospitals.The public hospitals of Australia are owned and operated by the state governments and state health authorities; they are not owned and operated by the federal government. It is our responsibility to give the states enough money to help run those hospitals; we have given them a GST and we have given them a 28 per cent increase in real terms. The Labor Party opposed the GST; the Labor Party opposed the survival of the private health insurance system. It is the Labor Party that has tried to stop this government helping the public hospital system of Australia.2970014:11:0029700Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister please update the House about the welfare of Diana Thomas and Peter Bunch, the two Australian aid workers currently being held in Afghanistan? Would the minister also inform the House of any steps being taken to aid the release of Ms Thomas and Mr Bunch?29700Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Pearce for her question and recognise the concern she shows for Australians who may get into difficulties when they are overseas. The government is deeply concerned about the welfare of the two Australian aid workers, Diana Thomas and Peter Bunch. They were detained in Afghanistan around two weeks ago. My department here in Canberra and also our High Commission in Islamabad—which is the nearest appropriate post to Afghanistan—are doing everything they can, even at this stage, to secure more information about Ms Thomas and Mr Bunch and to get consular access to them. We are working very closely with the German and American governments, as well as the United Nations, in order to try to secure the release of the two Australians. There is no doubt that having the three governments—the German, the United States and the Australian governments—working together in a cooperative way is maximising the effectiveness of any campaign we can run to get the Australians released. But so far I have to say I am very disappointed with the results we have been able to achieve. For example, the Taliban have so far denied all consular access to the detainees. They have also so far refused to extend the Australian Consul's visa and also the visas of the visiting German and American Consuls. As a consequence, if those visas are not extended by tomorrow, they will have to return to Islamabad. The Taliban have agreed to pass on some personal care items that our Consul has taken with him to Kabul, but we do not have any confirmation yet as to whether Ms Thomas or Mr Bunch have received the items.This recent action by the Taliban of arresting eight international and also 16 of their national aid workers is of concern to governments and aid organisations around the world. It is our view that, whatever the private beliefs of the Australians may be, these were people doing good work in Afghanistan helping the Afghan people and this was a humanitarian mission. It is also always deeply regrettable when there is this sort of outcome as a result of humanitarian work. I commend the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, for his appeal to the Taliban for a speedy solution to this problem.I can assure the House that the Australian government will continue to work tirelessly to get Diana Thomas and Peter Bunch released from Afghanistan and we will continue to retain close contact with their families, who have our sympathy and also our support.2970114:14:0029701Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given your claim that enough federal money is being spent on health, can you confirm that the most recent Medicare statistics show a dramatic decline in bulk-billing, with over three million fewer services a year being bulk-billed now than when your government was elected? Can you confirm that these statistics also show that the average patient cost to see a GP has gone up 35 per cent, from $8 to $11? Doesn't this show that, under your government, it is harder and harder to see a bulk-billing doctor and more and more expensive to see a doctor who does not bulk-bill? Prime Minister, what positive solution will you be proposing to reverse this alarming trend?29701Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will, naturally, analyse the figures that have been put forward by the shadow minister regarding the question of bulk-billing. There will probably be something of a genre of questions from the opposition during this question time. Basically the opposition are saying that the federal government is not spending enough money on health and should spend more. I think that is what they are saying, although last week I thought that was only as important as roll-back. A few days before that, of course, it was not as important as roll-back. Our position is very clear: we have devoted record amounts in federal government support for health services in Australia.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga has asked her question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Since I was asked the question by the Leader of the Opposition, I have been handed a quite remarkable chart by the Minister for Health and Aged Care.MG4Lee, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell!ZD4Mr HOWARD—It shows that since 1997-98—MG4Lee, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Dobell!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Commonwealth spending has increased each year more than states spending by—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order that I am forced to raise because of your warning to the member for Dobell—and he was drawing your attention to this—is that you are applying a double standard.OK6Nairn, Gary, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am listening to the Manager of Opposition Business. I need no help from the member for Eden-Monaro.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—You are allowing the Prime Minister to display to television cameras and to the House a chart which you would not allow members on this side to do when asking questions.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—As every member of the House will be aware, and as every observer of question time will be aware, the exposure that I allowed the Prime Minister to give to the chart that he used was identical to the exposure that I have allowed members of the opposition to give to the charts they have used. The member for Dobell had the audacity to challenge what I had said. It was for that reason that he was warned. My ruling has been entirely consistent with past practice.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a different point of order which goes to relevance. The Prime Minister was asked a specific question about bulk-billing and the increase in the price of services. He is two minutes into his answer and he has not had a thing to say about it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister was asked a question, the first sentence of which referred to the amount of money being spent on health, as I wrote it down.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Resuming the point that I was making, this chart—which I will not display again but which has been displayed for the House to see—is very revealing. It goes to the very point of the credibility of this debate about the adequacy of the provision of public assets for public services. What it demonstrates is that between 1997-98 and 2001-02—83NHall, Jill, MPMs Hall—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance too. The Prime Minister is not addressing the issue of bulk-billing.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Shortland will resume her seat or I will deal with her! I have already deemed that the Prime Minister's answer is relevant.ZD4Mr HOWARD—This chart demonstrates that, since 1997-98, Commonwealth spending has increased each year more than state spending on public hospitals. Federal spending on publicly owned public hospitals has increased at a faster rate. The total amount that produces the gap is almost $1.5 billion. In other words, over the last four years we have increased our investment—and we are committed to continue this investment—by almost $1.5 billion more than the states. I might add, almost in anticipation of another question I might be asked later on in question time, that it is the same story with public schools.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. This is a question about bulk-billing. It has nothing to do with public schools and it has nothing to do with—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat! The Prime Minister's tangential reference to public schools was entirely consistent with what has happened in the past. Clearly if he dwelt on the matter, I would rule him out of order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It was tangentially anticipatory; I was anticipating something in a tangential fashion. I will return to the mainstream of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I thought he made a reference to the adequacy of federal government support for health. Was I right?Government members—Yes!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The point I was making was that we have helped the states to fund their own hospitals more generously than they have themselves. Over the last four years you have watched us increase our money. The states rip money out of public hospitals and then come running along to us and ask for more so that they can spend the additional money on their own political fantasies instead of spending it on basic government services. If you look at the record of any of the state governments—if you look at the New South Wales government, if you look at the Victorian government—over the last four years, and I do not exempt any of them from this criticism, irrespective of their political colour, I would remind the House that over that period of time we have massively increased our contribution—and that increase will go on—but the states all the while have been taking money away from public hospitals and then complaining that we are not providing enough money. They just love hearing from the Leader of the Opposition because, if the Leader of the Opposition ever got into government, he would continue to let the states off the hook; he would continue to adopt a policy of handing over more federal money but not requiring the states to make their contributions. The states have a responsibility to fund their own hospitals. We have a responsibility to help, and we are being more than helpful. They are letting the public hospitals down, and the Leader of the Opposition ought to be training his gun sights on them.2970314:23:0029703Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House what the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics international merchandise trade publication tells us about Australia's trade performance?29703Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question. I can inform him that, last Friday, the ABS released the international merchandise trade figures for the June quarter of 2001 which showed the Australian trade picture for the full year ending June 2001. The figures show us that the Australian trade balance was the largest surplus since 1991-92, a surplus of $1.3 billion in merchandise trade and, more particularly, a surplus that was done on the back of rising exports—unlike the last trade surplus of 1991-92 which was caused by Labor's recession. The honourable member for Hinkler will be pleased to know that the trade in exports of rural commodities over the year was up by 20.6 per cent. So Australia's farmers are leading the way in increasing Australia's export trade, with a 20.6 per cent increase in rural commodities over the last year.Elaborately transformed manufactures exports rose by 16 per cent over the course of the year. This was led by motor car exports, which grew by 36½ per cent, and an increase in the export of medicinal and pharmaceutical products of 30.1 per cent. To break down the trade into destinations: our trade surplus with Japan increased by 24.7 per cent in goods exports; our trade with the United States rose by 21.4 per cent; and our trade with Taiwan, Singapore and Korea rose in terms of exports by 25 per cent, 23.5 per cent and 20.9 per cent respectively. So the good news is that, in a world where growth is slowing very considerably, especially in the United States and Japan, Australian exports grew. One of the reasons they grew, particularly in relation to the United States, was the exchange rate factor; but, in addition to that, taking taxes off exports gave Australian exporters a fair go for the first time in decades. When we reformed the taxation system we took $3½ billion in taxes off exports. We were opposed every step of the way but we wanted Australian exporters to have the same opportunity that other countries gave their exporters. Other countries took taxes off exports and Australia never did until there was a government that had the courage to reform the Australian taxation system on 1 July last year. Obviously, the situation in other economies of the world is still slowing; for example, in the United States and in Japan. Australia is currently one of the strongest growing economies of the developed world, contrary to all of the predictions that were made by the Australian Labor Party. I pay tribute to Australia's exporters and to Australia's export results. This is a magnificent result for Australian export: a merchandise trade surplus led by Australia's exporters, the highest since recession in 1991-92. I particularly want to pay tribute to the farmers and rural producers of Australia who led the way in that performance. 2970414:27:0029704Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—My question without notice is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given your claim that enough federal money is being spent on health, what would you do for patients like Ms Hannigan of Sydney, whose orthopaedic surgeon demanded she pay him $950 up front before he would operate on her knee? Why is it necessary for Ms Hannigan to find $950 before she was treated? Prime Minister, what positive solution would you propose to stop the growing Americanisation of the health system, where no dollars means no treatment? Or, are you saying to Ms Hannigan, `Just get used to it'?29704Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As I always do, I will naturally examine the circumstances of the constituent mentioned by the honourable member. But, talking generally about the issue, one of the things I would do is to suggest to the honourable member that he ring Craig Knowles and demand an explanation from the New South Wales health minister as to why New South Wales is not putting in as much money into their own hospitals as we are. I think that is the question that ought to be asked. If I were the member I would take very careful stock, as no doubt he will, of the preparation of the Labor Party's roll-back plans for the federal election. I have no doubt that all of the members of caucus will be consulted about what items ought to be rolled back. They will all be brought into the inner circle; I am quite certain that they will all be ushered into the leader's office and will be invited to make their contributions. The Manager of Opposition Business seems to be running the opposition's agenda. Over the last couple of weeks he has taken over the political agenda from the Leader of the Opposition. I wonder which shadow minister it will be next—maybe the member for Brisbane will take it over next week.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked a very specific question about a patient having to pay $950 up front before treatment. I do not believe the Prime Minister has addressed the substance of my question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Chifley asked a question that focused on federal money for health. I agree with him that the Prime Minister's reference to relationships between the Leader of the Opposition and his backbench did not necessarily relate directly to health. I ask him to come back to the subject of health.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am always touched by relations between leaders and their backbench. Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Anything to get them excited. They have got me again—I give in; I surrender. I will not personalise it between the member for Chifley and his leader, but I suggest the member for Chifley read a letter—and I will send him a copy—which was sent by Mr David Hamill, who is the Treasurer and the member for Ipswich—Government members—Was!ZD4Mr HOWARD—That is right; he was. When he wrote this letter, he was Treasurer. He wrote this letter on 18 January 2000, and I will read it very carefully so the member for Chifley might take it in. He was writing to the federal Treasurer, and he said:As you are aware, broadening the existing list of GST-free items—that is, roll-back—has the potential to adversely impact on the quantum of GST revenues that are available for distribution to the Commonwealth and state-territory governments for the delivery of core services. What Mr Hamill was arguing—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. This is about a private patient. Specialists are the responsibility of the Commonwealth government.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga will resume her seat.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The point that was being made in Mr Hamill's letter—and it remains as valid today as it was in January of last year when it was written—is that if you reduce the GST reach, you are reducing the capacity of state governments to fund the operation of public hospitals. In those circumstances—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order and it goes to relevance. This is about specialist services, the responsibility of the Commonwealth, and the Prime Minister is refusing to answer it, with this pathetic excuse— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and the member for Deakin!SU5Vaile, Mark, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the Minister for Trade.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Burke. Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, the question—1K6Billson, Bruce, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dunkley! The Prime Minister has the call. He is being denied the opportunity to address the House by the member for Dunkley. Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, the question was based on arguments about the adequacy of federal government funding for health. I am simply making the point that in every area we have provided assistance, and in all of those areas the opposition opposed the provision of that assistance.2970514:35:0029705Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer provide the House with additional detail on plans to alter the indirect tax base? What would be the impact of such changes on other tax bases?29705Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Curtin for her question. I can tell the House, as most people who have been in this House for the last three years would know, that the Labor Party have been telling Australia that the worst thing imaginable for the Australian economy is the GST. The thing that they are absolutely committed to, more than anything else, is rolling it back—except that the Labor Party never use the term `roll-back' these days. It has been replaced with a new phraseology: it is now called `GST tax cut'. It is so hard to get them to use the term `roll-back', but it was not always thus. Roll-back was announced at the ALP conference in Queensland on 13 June 1999. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You really are in the past.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Here we are in the past, says the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. You say to him, `roll-back was announced in June 1999'—roll-back is now in the past, is it? Opposition members—You are!CT4Mr COSTELLO—We talk about roll-back and he accuses us of being in the past. I do not know why we get so confused. We take all of our information from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He was asked this: `With the roll-back, are you talking about dismantling the GST?' His answer: `Anything that you can conceivably think of is implicated in the term “roll-back”.' Back in those days, roll-back was huge—because the GST was so terrible, so monstrous. Anything you could think of was implicated in roll-back.Then, as the months went by and the opportunistic attempt to profit out of opposing what was good for Australia began to fall apart, roll-back began to diminish and it became the policy which could no longer stand by its name. By the time we got to the Aston by-election, the Labor Party had a totally different tack. By the time we got to the Aston by-election, the Leader of the Opposition was saying, `Oh, no, tax is not too high. What people want is more spending on health and education.' When we said, `More spending on health and education would mean higher income taxes,' the Leader of the Opposition lasted about two hours before he called another press conference and said that he was not in favour of more spending on health and education if it meant higher taxes. Then we had the extraordinary view this week where, of all people, the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs was sent out to announce a new tax policy. The shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, obviously knowledgable on tax policy and roll-back and in charge of the policy, said that tax cuts were a second order issue. Why did he say they were a second order issue? Because he had read the polls that morning that said that people wanted more spending. So he said: The way the tax cut is delivered and the extent of the tax cut are second issues to Australians compared to initiatives about health and education.So now the Labor Party are back to, `We're going to forget about GST roll-back; we are now in favour of more spending.' Then the press went to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is responsible for tax policy, and asked, `Are you in favour of more spending on health and education? Are you giving away roll-back? Is it a second order issue to you?' The journalist on AM asked:What is Labor's top priority? Rollback or investment in social service? He asked, `What is your top priority—less revenue or more spending?' The answer was `Both. My priorities are both. As a top priority, I am both in favour of rolling back revenue and in favour of more spending.'DT4Crean, Simon, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—As I said in the parliament last week, why didn't we think of that as a policy—less revenue and more spending? Why has this idea avoided the government for so long; that is, that you can roll back the GST, spend more on health, spend more on education and you can have bigger surpluses—DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned!CT4Mr COSTELLO—and all of that with no downside for the Australian public? We had the Beazley pre-Aston position, the Beazley post-Aston position, the McMullan position post the survey and the Crean position post McMullan. McMullan rolls back Beazley, Crean rolls back the roll-back on Beazley and roll-back heads north while it is heading south. If you ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, `What is your priority—going north or going south?' he will say `Both—I'll go north and then I'll go south and then I'll go north again.' He goes around in this ever-diminishing circle of policy. If you are going to be brave about this line—and today they are back on more spending on health and education—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—That is today.CT4Mr COSTELLO—That is today's policy—they are back on that. If you are going to be brave about spending more on health and education, you should do two things. Firstly, you should announce the death of roll-back. Let us inter it. Let us have a funeral. Let us say, `This was the policy that never came about. It was cheap and it was opportunist, and the good thing about it is that it died before it ever saw the light of day.' Secondly, you should come out and say, `What's more, we are so in favour of more spending that we are going to do what we did after the 1993 election: we're going to put up income tax rates.' Then people will start believing you about more spending on health and education. We have sat in this parliament while this government has reformed the taxation system—while it has done all of the heavy lifting—and we have seen weak, cheap, populist policy oppose it, and before it even gets to the election it starts falling apart. It is about time the Labor Party decided where it stood, because nobody else can figure out for a moment where that is.Distinguished Visitors2970610000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a delegation from the Congress of the United States of America, led by the Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman of the International Relations Committee. Mr Hyde has had a long and distinguished service in the Congress. We welcome him and his committee to this House.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice297062970614:42:0029706Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given your claim that enough federal money is being spent on health, what will you do to assist the more than 100,000 people waiting for dental services in Queensland, 50,000 of whom have been waiting for more than two years for dental treatment? Prime Minister, is it not true that the Queensland government has increased its funding for dental services and these long waits are due solely to you scrapping the Commonwealth Dental Scheme in 1996? 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Prime Minister, what positive solution will you be proposing to address the growing crisis in dental health in Australia?29707Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In answer to the Leader of the Opposition, that program was not scrapped. That program was a four-year program which was allowed to continue, and that was the end of it. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that, under the new taxation arrangements, the state of Queensland will be better off earlier than any other state. The greatest beneficiary under the new taxation arrangements is the state of Queensland. I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that, if he is to have any credibility as a national political leader, he ought to require the state leaders of his own party to bear their own constitutional responsibilities.2970714:43:0029707Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Is the minister aware of comments or suggestions that measures to restrict access to judicial review through a privative clause are unconstitutional, particularly in relation to unauthorised arrivals? Can the minister inform the House whether privative clauses have been used in the past in relation to appeals by Australian citizens?29707Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Petrie for her question and for her interest in this matter of the large number of unlawful arrivals who access Australia, the extent to which there is considerable delay in determining the claims that some may present for refugee status, and some of the reasons for that delay. We have seen a good deal of comment in recent months that people are held for long periods of time. The fact is, of course, that most people who come to Australia unlawfully, if they come with documents that can prove who they are, are able to get prompt decisions from us; some will have decisions in as few as four weeks. Others who do not present with documentation, who often try to conceal their identity and whose circumstances and experiences are not necessarily clear, can get decisions in as few as 14 or 15 weeks, and that occurs in 80 per cent of cases.The sorts of people who find that they are detained for much longer periods are those being held for removal or those who seek to access all the opportunities available for appeal. The appeal system in Australia does mean that some people can access not only a first tier decision by the department but also an independent review by a qualified tribunal. They can then get before a judge of the Federal Court, they can get before three judges of the Federal Court, they can get before seven judges of the High Court of Australia—and they can still present their cases to me on humanitarian grounds, and in some cases they can go off to the United Nations. That situation has been long known. The Labor Party when it was in office tried to get rid of that system. It wanted the tribunal decisions to be final and determinative, and it introduced provisions in the Migration Act to achieve that outcome. Those provisions have not achieved that outcome, because section 75 of the Constitution says that you cannot limit people's access to the High Court if they wish to have it.So is there another way? The government took advice on this matter from some of the leading counsel in Australia, and the advice was that, if we use what is known as a privative clause—a clause which boosts the authority of the tribunal that first makes the decision—that would exclude most people from being able to access our courts for judicial review. It does not in any way limit the constitutional provision, but it does ensure that you can get quick, final and determinative decisions, that you can remove these allegations of injustice that people are being held too long, and that you can save the Australian taxpayers money—which the honourable member for Bowman often laments about. I have been asked whether there are any other views. I have found some other views. I found in the Australian of 30 July that the Labor Party now says it has a plan and it is going to take a `radically different approach', particularly in relation to the `push to restrict court appeals'. Its radical plan, which was to avoid an `unconstitutional breach of the separation of powers doctrine' was in fact to order the courts to speed up the process. I cannot think of anything more calculated to offend the separation of powers doctrine than to give the judges some direction about the way in which they ought to deal with the cases before them.Further, I found that when he was considering the matter on 9 August the shadow minister suddenly thought, `Well, maybe it's not unconstitutional,' because at a Racial Respect Conference he had this to say:We say no, that is against the separation of powers doctrine, probably the High Court would throw it out as being unconstitutional, and we want to help them from themselves.We are not sure what that meant, that he wants to help us from ourselves. It seems that the Leader of the Opposition has picked up on this, because the Courier-Mail today states:But Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said Australia's legal system was based on the appeal process and it was enshrined in the Constitution.Some members are wondering where I am leading in relation to that—I hear some noise opposite. Privative clauses are not new. They were upheld by the High Court in Hickman's case, and used to limit the rights of primarily Australians to access the courts to appeal decisions from tribunals.Most of the legislation in which privative clauses have been used were introduced by Mr Chifley when he was Prime Minister, and he did that in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904; it was certainly done by Mr Hawke in the Industrial Relations Act 1998; it was done by Curtin in the National Security (Coal Mining Industry) Employment Act; it was done by Chifley in the stevedoring industry act; it was done by Curtin again in the Coal Production Wartime Act. Mr Speaker, I would not want to keep the House so long. It has been done in many enactments at a Commonwealth level. It has been utilised by the states in a number of areas. We have here a situation in which the Labor Party wants to preclude Australians from being able to access appeals, because it wants to boost the decisions of tribunals. When it comes to people who are non-Australians abusing the asylum system, it wants to ensure that they have access to the most comprehensive appeals system imaginable—one which not only is supported by Australian taxpayers but which deprives people of what they are seeking: a prompt, fair and quick system in which their claims can be validly determined. I table the list of enactments in which privative clauses have been used both at a Commonwealth and at a state level.3K6Cameron, Ross, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta will exercise some courtesy, as is expected of all other members in this House.2970814:51:0029708Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, now that you have dismissed concerns about our health system by blaming the states and by evading responsibility on bulk-billing, dental care services and specialist services, are you standing by your comment in the Sydney Morning Herald last week that you have done enough on health?29708Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The record of this government in providing additional resources to health in this country is quite outstanding, and it is not something that finished with the last budget. We provided an increase, via the Australian health care agreements, of something in the order of 28 per cent in real terms over the next five years. In case those opposite did not listen, let me repeat: we put $2.5 billion into saving private health insurance. That has not only dramatically lifted the number of people covered by private health insurance because we have made it more affordable; it has also taken some of the load off the public hospital system.In addition to that, we have committed 28 per cent more in real terms under the Australian health care agreements. I would also remind the Leader of the Opposition that two budgets ago we doubled the federal government provision for health and medical research in this country as a result of the recommendation of the Wills committee. That is an investment that had been allowed to waste under previous Labor governments, and we in fact have doubled it. So that is the third great thing that we have done for health in this country. The fourth thing that we have done is something that we have done for the capacity of this country to provide ever growing amounts of revenue for public services years into the future—that is, we have introduced a broad based indirect tax that will provide a growing revenue base for state governments to fund essential public services. Two of the great public service responsibilities of state governments in this country are government schools and public hospitals. Both of those things are the responsibility of state governments. So what you have is a picture quite specifically in relation to health where we have provided ever growing amounts of money. In relation to the generic capacity of state governments to boost public services, we have provided a growing revenue base.This issue is very interesting. I was asked a question by the leader of the federal parliamentary Labor Party, the Leader of the Opposition. When you go through the performance of some of the states, the figures you get are very interesting. I quoted earlier the gap, the $1.5 billion shortfall from state governments for public hospitals over the last four years—that is a $1.5 billion shortfall from all state governments. When I go through the list, I find that between financial year 2000-01 and financial year 2001-02, under the Australian health care agreements—that is the money we pay direct to state governments to help run the Medicare system and to help keep public hospitals going—our Australian health care funding rose by six per cent, while Mr Carr's funding in New South Wales, through his minister Craig Knowles, rose by only 1.9 per cent, despite the fact that these are New South Wales government hospitals. We do not run those hospitals—we do not have the primary responsibility for them—any more than we run the government school system. Year after year you have seen state governments thieving money from public hospitals and public schools, while the federal government has progressively increased the amount. Yet, on top of that, what does the federal leader of the Labor Party want to do? He wants to lift your income tax so that state Labor premiers can be further let off the hook. That is unacceptable to us.2970914:57:0029709Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister inform the House of Defence Force contributions to the Coastwatch program? What alternative proposals exist in this area?29709Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for his question. The Coastwatch organisation today has available to it 1,800 sea days a year provided by Royal Australian Navy patrol boats, and it also has available to it 250 hours of Orion aircraft managed and operated by the Royal Australian Air Force. I want to compliment those members of the Australian Defence Force on the fantastic job that they do. I think it ought to be publicly recognised that they operate at the highest professional standards. 8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—Correct.WI4Mr REITH—If it is correct, Mr Speaker, as is interjected by the opposition, why is it that the Leader of the Opposition was out over the weekend, basically canning the efforts of Coastwatch, which is today bulwarked by the workers of the Australian Defence Force?8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—I can't help myself.WI4Mr REITH—I note what the interjector says. This is the comment of the Leader of the Opposition when talking about the effectiveness of the existing operations: `There are a lot of people entering this country illegally who don't get caught.' The detection rate is 98.6 per cent. In the face of a 98.6 per cent detection rate, the Leader of the Opposition uses that as his excuse, as his reason, for proposing the alternative coast guard operation. What the Leader of the Opposition does not tell you is that, when he was the defence minister, he examined this issue and concluded that a coastguard would not be more effective; that it would be less effective, but at an additional cost of $2 billion. I note that a parliamentary committee have taken some public evidence on what is the most efficient way of managing this issue. They heard from former commissioners of the Australian Federal Police, and the current head of Customs said:There is a possibility of competition rather than complementarity in that and, frankly, duplication of resources. In other words, when you look behind the populist language of the Leader of the Opposition, you find that in the past he has opposed that which he is now proposing. He today proposes a coast guard which would cost $2 billion, on his own calculations, for a system which would be less effective than that which operates now. This is the worst case possible of opposition populism, out there attacking those Australians in the Australian Defence Force who are doing an excellent job—the figures support that—using their good efforts. We say that this coastguard proposition is a complete furphy and ought to be rejected—and it is.2971015:00:0029710Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given your claim that enough federal money is being spent on health and aged care, are you aware of the Herald Sun report today that confirms that your own Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency rated 11 nursing homes in Victoria as critical and a further 35 as unacceptable? Are you also aware that the report states that 2,000 frail, elderly Victorians in nursing homes are receiving substandard care, including residents being left in urine-soaked sheets or being inappropriately restrained, wounds that are not being treated properly, unqualified staff wrongly administering medication—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—and inadequate infection control, putting residents at serious risk? Prime Minister, what positive solution will you be proposing, to address the shocking state of some of our nursing homes and their disgraceful treatment of our elderly Australians?29710Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—I read the article—VU5Griffin, Alan, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Bruce!SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—I read the article by Mr Keith Moore in the Herald Sun this morning, and I saw an article which showed that the information in that article had been obtained from the information that we put on the public record. Furthermore, both the agency and the department have had very solid discussions with Mr Moore, and he had, I believe, presented a very balanced article. The point, if I can make it, is this: we lifted the carpet on what was left behind by the Labor Party after 13 years in government. We have put in place a reform package that means that now all homes have to meet higher standards than were ever envisaged by the Labor Party, which itself commissioned no less than two reports on aged care which it never, ever responded to.I would point out that those reports referred to in that newspaper article are indeed ones which are valid at the time they are put onto the Internet; but, so that people can be reassured, I can say that all of the 11 homes that were noted in that article as having a critical rating no longer have a critical rating. In the case of Anzac and RSL Park homes, an administrator has been appointed and each of those is no longer critical. In the case of Isomer, it has had its site audit and, for reaccreditation, is no longer critical. Good Shepherd at Maryville now has two years accreditation and is no longer critical. Gualtiero Vaccari, two homes, received one year originally and has a reaudit scheduled for 8 October, is progressing well and is no longer critical. Lewis Court has a reaccreditation site audit for 2 and 3 October and is no longer critical. Radford has a reaccreditation site audit for 9 and 10 October, is progressing well and is no longer critical. St Francis of Assisi, two homes, has a reaccreditation audit for October and is no longer critical. Melton, where an adviser has been appointed, is no longer critical and is seeking reconsideration for accreditation. The point I am making is that this is a system that is working. We are dealing here with human beings, who will sometimes fall below the standards. Those homes represent about four to five per cent of all homes in Victoria, which means that 95 to 96 per cent of all homes are meeting the standards. I think that the Labor Party's attempts to play politics with older Australians, their welfare and their quality of life are indeed not fair to the people who are giving good care and giving good outcomes for the quality of life of frail, older Australians who need that care. Indeed, the Labor Party's cynicism, given their failure to act in 13 years despite the fact that they had audit reports, is testimony to the fact that they would rather play politics with older people's lives than actually do anything about the matter. This system is working and it is working well. We will always have some homes that will fall below the standard, but it is important that we come to know about them so that something can be done about it. I might add that I understand that the member for Hotham was conducting over the weekend a call-in system about aged care homes in Adelaide. It was advertised there. The state manager of the Department of Health and Aged Care has written to Mr Crean and stated that, if any information came forward that would show that there is any substandard care for any individuals, he must let the department know immediately so that something can be done about it, and that we are not playing politics with it.2971115:06:0029711Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister update the House on the implementation of Australia's strict new quarantine barriers? Is the increase in funding for the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service improving the rate of seizure of items that could potentially harm our agricultural industries, such as those in Dawson, and our clean and green image abroad?29711Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for Dawson for her question. I am happy to report to her and to the House that the government's program to upgrade Australia's quarantine service is now well advanced and already achieving significant outcomes. There has been a 145 per cent increase in the number of quarantine seizures at our mail centres and airports, compared with this time last year, and a 121 per cent increase in the number of on-the-spot fines issued. As part of this upgrade, quarantine service staff at the border will increase by 70 per cent, we will be tripling the number of dog detector teams, and the number of x-ray machines will be increased from nine to 58. This, of course, is actually the second major increase in quarantine expenditure and upgrading of border activities since this government came to office. I heard the shadow minister intervening, suggesting that things must have been bad before. Well, they were bad under the opposition; they were dreadful under the Labor Party. Under the ALP, funding for the quarantine service was actually reduced. It is quite extraordinary that we have the opposition now rushing around talking about a $500 million coast guard, even though when they were in office they actually cut expenditure on border patrol activities. Indeed, under this government, the number of people involved on full-time border activities in the quarantine service will rise from the 400 when Labor was in office to 1,400. That demonstrates clearly the different attitude between a coalition government and Labor to these vital issues.Occasionally, some people would like us to believe that perhaps Labor have changed and that they would do it differently next time. But, if you have any doubt about where Labor's attitude is on these sorts of questions, just look at the Labor states. At the same time as the Commonwealth is increasing expenditure on quarantine, the state Labor governments are winding back their capacity to deal with plant and animal diseases. The honourable member for Dawson, being a Queenslander, would be interested in the performance of the Beattie government, which has slashed the number of full-time staff in its market access and development division—while increasing its responsibilities—from 558 to 481 in just a short period of time. So it is reducing the capability of the program to deal with these sorts of issues at the same time as the Commonwealth is providing additional expenditure. It reminds me a little bit of some of the questions we have heard earlier today about health and education. The states wind back their efforts—Labor winds back its efforts— when the Commonwealth increases the effort, and then they complain that there is not enough expenditure in that field. Labor's record is well and truly clear: it wound back quarantine services when it was in office—it wound them back; it rolled them back—and Labor in office at the state level is also winding back its capacity to deal with pests and diseases. It is only a coalition government that will take strong and effective action in relation to quarantine. It is only a coalition government that can be counted upon to protect our clean and green image and to keep our borders safe.2971215:11:0029712Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care and follows her previous answer. Minister, why did you allow the provider of Templestowe Nursing Home, CIS Holdings, to sell their bed licences, gaining about $2 million as a reward for their shocking record of care? Why did you allow the Templestowe licences to be sold to Croft Health Care, with no guarantee that they would keep the nursing home open? Why did you also allow Croft to transfer 60 normal bed licences to extra-service places, enabling them to charge accommodation bonds of $150,000 and higher fees? Do these decisions have anything to do with the fact that Croft Health Care and the head of the Croft group are both donors to the Liberal Party? Isn't this just another example of you looking after the top end of town at the expense of old and frail Australians?3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The imputation in the latter part of that question is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I invite the Minister for Aged Care to respond to the first part of the question.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. By what precedent or criterion, Mr Speaker, do you contend that the second part of that question is out of order? It did not name any individual, nor did it raise any matters that are not on the public record. By what criterion and under what standing order do you contend that the second part of that question is out of order?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I indicated that the offensive part of that question was the part that implied that a group already named in the question had influenced the way in which it was treated by a donation to a particular political party. The imputation was the reason I ruled it out.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, the only reference that is made to that company is that they are donors to the Liberal Party. That might be a comment on their intelligence, but not on their principles or morality.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation!5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—You would like to hit me with a lump of wood, would you?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—No, an iron bar.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation and the Manager of Opposition Business are, as they know, both not assisting the chair; nor are they adding to the dignity of the parliament. I have, in fact, indicated that it was a question of imputation that—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Imputation of what? You say that it refers to those people, and all that it says is that they are donors to the Liberal Party. Are you saying that that is an imputation and that that is a connection? Are you saying by your ruling—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Are you saying by your ruling that it is not possible in this parliament to ask whether people have donated to political parties and whether that has had any impact on the action of the minister? Do you think that that is no longer an accountability point that we should be able to pursue in this parliament, Mr Speaker? 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will take up the matter raised by the Manager of Opposition Business and look at what has been the precedent in the past. Given recent experience, I believed that I was ruling fairly in the interests of the people so named.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—To go to the same point of order, Mr Speaker, because perhaps you have forgotten the character of the question before that particular phrase came in, a series of extraordinary beneficial decisions are being taken on behalf of this group—extraordinary. Then the question comes: do these decisions, which have been enumerated—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have already indicated—SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—I take singular exception—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume her seat.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Withdraw.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Withdraw what?SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—What you just said.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—When the House has come to order, lest it escape the attention of members in front of me: the minister had not been denied the call; she had simply not been recognised as addressing the House prior to the fact that I had recognised her. I was in fact responding to what the Leader of the Opposition had said. By his comment about the preferences allegedly given to this particular nursing home, the Leader of the Opposition was himself making the imputation which had prompted my action. I have indicated to the Manager of Opposition Business that I will look at the precedent and the way in which former Speakers have dealt with questions like this and I will be happy to report to the Manager of Opposition Business. For the purpose of question time, the latter part of his question does not stand. I call the minister.PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition is making precisely the same mistake as the minister. He has not been recognised.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: it must be possible in this chamber to ask a question about a relationship between a decision—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have indicated that I intend to come back to the Manager of Opposition Business on this very matter. It has never been my intent, nor is it now, to thwart the opportunity of anyone in the House to ask appropriate questions. I call the minister.29713Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—First and foremost, I have no idea whether or not this particular firm has made a donation to the Liberal Party, and furthermore, if I can say, presumably the Labor Party do not think that donations to political parties are immoral or they would not accept $5 million a year from the unions.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! Minister, I have ruled that part of the question out of order and I invite you to refer to—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The fact of the matter is that the standing orders provide differently for questions and for answers—Opposition members interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Those are the facts, and we attempt to run the place according to the standing orders.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the House will address his remarks through the chair.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, given that you have acknowledged that an imputation was made, it is perfectly reasonable in an answer for a minister to respond to that.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House makes a valid point of order. I call the minister.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The standing orders say that the answer must be relevant to the question. The part of the question which you are seeking now to give the minister leave to answer is the part that you said is not properly part of the question and therefore cannot be answered; reference to that cannot be relevant. Might I add that that is exactly why I thought your ruling was wrong in the first place, because it leaves open precisely this sort of misleading reference by the Leader of the House which leads to the problem that is now occurring. May I make it very clear that we cannot have people being allowed to answer questions which you have ruled out of order. WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—An answer has to be relevant; that is what the standing orders say. I put it to you that that is what the minister is being—entirely relevant.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The standing orders as they apply to questions and answers have been a matter for debate in this House for as long as I have been in the House. It is fair to say that the way in which questions are framed is determined by standing order 144 and that standing order 145 refers specifically to answers. I am sure that all members are familiar with both those standing orders. I invite the minister to come to the question.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: you ruled out of order on the basis of imputation—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Chifley will resume his seat. PE4Beazley, Kim, MP83MPlibersek, Tanya, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! I am not being assisted by the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Sydney. I call the member for Chifley.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—When we raise the issue of donations to the Liberal Party, it is ruled out of order. When the minister raises donations from unions to the Labor Party, that is allowed.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Chifley will resume his seat. I have exercised the standing orders as they are provided. I invite the minister to return to the question.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Now to go to the substance of the question, which relates to the Templestowe Nursing Home, which the agency found to have serious risk and where action needed to be taken. The department and the agency had worked with the home and the management to bring it up to standard over a period of six months. It had worked with it assiduously and it was determined that, despite their good efforts, the provider would not meet the required standards. The approved provider was required to sell that business in order that the residents could have good continuity of care. The policy has remained the same under us as it was under the previous government.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—We didn't have kerosene baths!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman!SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—When licences are allocated to approved providers, they gain a capital gain when they sell those beds. That is the way the system has always been. Of course, it does underwrite any entitlements for employees who may leave their employ at the time. To go to the sale to the new approved provider, the important thing is this: it has gone to an approved provider who does have a good track record within the industry. It is important, we consider, that we remove the serious risk and that we remove the impediments to good care rather than remove the residents. The point is that this particular purchaser has given notice that over time he intends to close that home at Templestowe, but under the act every resident must be placed in suitable alternative accommodation, and this will happen over a period of time. He may not merely close a home.The second point that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition was the question of extra service. Extra service is permitted to take up only 12 per cent of all places that are allocated. In fact, it currently runs at about three per cent. Providers must apply within the round and it has to be approved within the department that there are sufficient other places available, particularly for concessional residents, before approval is given for extra-service places to be created. It is incumbent upon someone who applies for extra-service status to prove that they will in fact be giving extra service and that it is not merely what is required under the act. There are people within the community who are prepared to pay more for additional things. That is their choice, and choice is what we are concerned to see. The biggest choice we want is for people to be able to stay home as long as they possibly can, and that is why we have increased community aged care packages up to 25,000, which is an increase of 450 per cent on what you had. I have to say that this system of ours that we have put in place, which has compliance rules and has both the agency and the department involved in seeing that compliance is met, is a successful system—one which the opposition and the Democrats voted on when it went through the Senate, when we implemented the new act. We have finetuned it since then. As I have said before, we will always find some people who fall below the standard and who need to be worked with in order for that standard to again be reached. We are concerned to remove the impediments to good care rather than remove residents.2971515:26:0029715Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Will the minister inform the House of recently released ABS data on industrial disputes? What does the report reveal about the government's workplace relations policies? How have those policies acted to make working Australian families better off, and are there any alternative policies?29715Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Parramatta for his question, which was extremely well put. Over the weekend, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made an extraordinarily brazen statement. He said:Industrial relations will improve under a Labor government, just as they did when we were in office last time. The lowest level of industrial disputes was under a Labor government.He has a lot of front on this one.Government members interjecting—EZ5Mr ABBOTT—He is a front organisation for the ACTU. He is absolutely dead wrong there. Last week, the Australian Bureau of Statistics put out figures showing that in the 12 months to May just 44 working days had been lost per 1,000 employees. That is a 10 per cent decrease on the figures one month earlier, and it is a 56 per cent decrease on one year earlier. It is the lowest figure since this series was first kept in 1982. On other series, industrial disputation is at the lowest figure since records were first kept in 1913. It is true that there has been a recent upsurge in industrial disputation. It is true that some unions are getting in a bit of pre-election muscle flexing. It is true that some of them are putting in some ambit claims in anticipation that the policy of any future government might be pre-emptive surrender to the union movement. What would you expect from an opposition which is nothing but the political wing of the ACTU and which has as its Treasury spokesman one former ACTU president and as its employment spokesman another ACTU president? After the election, no doubt the industry spokesman will be Jennie George, yet another ACTU president. Sometime in the course of the next parliament, no doubt it will make way for Sharan Burrow, yet another ex-ACTU president. By contrast, this government has an extremely good record of helping working families.Honourable members interjecting—83YHoare, Kelly, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Charlton is warned!LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Especially Stan's family!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman is also warned. That is the third occasion on which I have had to draw his attention to the courtesies expected in the House.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—In 5½ years under this government's policies, average weekly earnings have gone up by some 12 per cent. They went up by just four per cent in the 13 years of the former government. In 5½ years this government has put basic award earnings up by some nine per cent. They actually fell by five per cent when members opposite were in government. Workers are earning more, and getting to keep more of their earnings because this government has put in place the biggest income tax cuts on record. And there are more workers, because we put 800,000 new jobs into the economy in 5½ years. This morning the Leader of the Opposition was asked a question and in response he said, `What they respond to'—that is to say, what voters respond to—`is positive solutions, and what they vote against is people who have done them damage.' Voters remember the damage that the Leader of the Opposition did, they remember the 20 per cent interest rates that he put on small business, they remember unemployment hitting 11 per cent, and they know that the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are the double digit duo when it comes to unemployment. That is why the people of Australia will never replace the best government since Bob Menzies with the worst opposition since Arthur Calwell.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions to the Speaker297162971615:31:0029716Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Mr Speaker, you will recall my asking over the last few weeks for you to follow up with the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, a number of outstanding questions on the Notice Paper. I would like to thank you for your representations under standing order 150, because today I received four answers to questions which were outstanding.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Lowe for his courtesy.83DMr MURPHY—While I am on my feet, I would like you to continue the good work and follow up a number of questions relating to the sale of Sydney airport.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lowe will come to the questions.83DMr MURPHY—Questions Nos 2414 and 2415 on 1 March to the Prime Minister, question No. 2449 to the Prime Minister on 8 March, question No. 2476 to the Prime Minister on 28 March, question No. 2547 to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation on 22 May, question No. 2583 on 23 May to the Prime Minister, question No. 2615 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services on 4 June, questions Nos 2656, 2658 and 2659 to the Minister for Finance and Administration on 6 June, questions Nos 2663 and 2671 on 7 June to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, and, finally, on 20 June question No. 2715 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Could you write to the Prime Minister and the various ministers under standing order 150 and facilitate replies, because it is not long before Sydney airport is sold and my constituents are very worried about it.29716SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Lowe, as the standing orders provide.Personal Explanations2971615:33:0029716Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Yes, on three occasions.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Firstly, I have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said that it was my intention to `let the states off the hook on health spending'. I have signed a Medicare alliance with them, whereby we have agreed to increase in real terms the amount of money going to health.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to the second point where he has been misrepresented.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The second misrepresentation is that the Prime Minister said that I would lift income tax; I will do no such thing. The third was from the Minister for Defence, who said—and I use his expression—`canning Coastwatch in the defence forces'. I have done no such thing; I have merely said that we should create a coastguard.15:34:0029716Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Bowman claim to have been misrepresented? 6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—During question time the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs mentioned, amongst other things, that Labor had a plan and that I had actually said something about ordering judges to do certain things with cases involving immigration matters. I can only presume that that reference was obtained from an article in the Australian on 30 July 2001, where I am quoted as saying:Under the plan, the agreement of judges would be sought to expedite cases involving people in detention centres making claims for asylum.That is hardly `ordering the judges', and I think that the minister should apologise for that misrepresentation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Bowman has indicated where he has been misrepresented.Questions to the Speaker297172971715:35:0029717Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—Mr Speaker, under section 150, I request that you write to the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs seeking reasons as to why he has not replied to my question No. 2748 on the Notice Paper.29717SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Oxley, as the standing orders provide.2971715:35:0029717Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I am glad to hear that the member for Lowe has finally got some answers to some of his questions.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Rankin will come to his point or resume his seat.83VMr EMERSON—Mr Speaker, would you write to the Treasurer for the seventh time and ask him why he will not provide an answer to my question No. 1290 of 3 April 2000?29717SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will raise that matter, as the standing orders provide.Personal Explanations2971715:36:0029717Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the minister claim to have been misrepresented?GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLY—Yes, on three occasions.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLY—I was misrepresented in the Penrith Star, a local newspaper in my electorate of Lindsay. That paper reported that I was claiming credit for volunteer work done by Mark Mikschl, a stonemason and the proprietor of Spike's Waterproofing Service of Windsor, in restoring local war memorials.ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane! The minister has the call. I have attempted to bring the House to exercise some sort of courtesy. The minister is entitled to be heard.GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLY—It is a fact that this government runs a program called Their service; Our heritage—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister must indicate where she has been misrepresented.GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLY—That program provides funds for restoring war memorials that have been let go by the council. Earlier this year, the Penrith RSL applied—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume her seat.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I draw your attention to the standing orders as normally applied in regard to—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business is aware that I attempt to monitor this closely. The minister must indicate, as I am sure she is aware, where she has personally been misrepresented, not where her department has been misrepresented; nor can she indicate where her party may have been misrepresented. Minister, I will listen to you.GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLY—The PenrithStar reporter was going off a press call of mine, which was made on the basis of a ministerial announcement that the Penrith RSL had been successful in securing funding for the renovation of the memorials in Memory Park, at the Castlereagh Public School and at the old council chambers. It was a cheque for over $1,600 to restore the said memorials, and that is what I announced at that press meeting. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I again raise a point of order—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume her seat. I anticipate that the Manager of Opposition Business is raising the same point of order. The minister must recognise the obligation that she has to indicate where she has been misrepresented. The minister, I believe, has made the first point of misrepresentation.GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLY—The second occasion was on 7 August when the member for Cowan read the said defamatory article into Hansard under privilege and he stated again that I had claimed credit for Mark Mikschl's work for cynical electoral purposes. I have served 6½ years in the RAAF—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister can simply indicate where she has been misrepresented. She cannot enter into any argument. This standing order has always been applied equitably to both sides and I expect the same arrangements to apply to her.GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLY—I was announcing the $1,600 of funding for the `Their service; our heritage' program.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Yes, but the minister has indicated that is where she was misrepresented. The third point is?GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLY—The third point was on 14 August when the PenrithStar published another defamatory article headlined `Jackie Kelly: Hypocrite MP' with a photo of the member for Cowan reading the previous defamatory article into Hansard with the caption `WA MP Graham Edwards calls Jackie Kelly a hypocrite'. At no stage in the member for Cowan's speech did he call me a hypocrite and in fact if he had known the facts of the case he would never have made the speech in the first place, not even with the ALP campaign in Lindsay—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has indicated where she has been misrepresented and will resume her seat.Leave of Absence2971815:40:0029718Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I move: That leave of absence until 15 October 2001 be given to the honourable member for Lilley, on the ground of ill health.Might I have your indulgence just to speak briefly on this, Mr Speaker?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—On behalf of all members, I am very happy to grant indulgence to the Leader of the Opposition. It may be that the Leader of the House will wish to respond as well.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Just briefly, as honourable members would know, the member for Lilley went into hospital just over a week ago for an operation in relation to prostate cancer. On all the reports that we have had, the operation has been entirely successful. This is a great relief to his family and to all his colleagues and I am sure to all members of the House. We wish him well for a speedy recovery.15:41:0029718Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—I am very pleased to support the motion. There is nothing more important than a person's health, both for them personally and for their family. We wish the member well. We wish him a speedy recovery. He has had a few knocks and we hope that he can overcome this and be back here giving us as good and as hard a time as he possibly can. We look forward to his early return and wish him well.15:41:0029718SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Can I simply indicate to members that, as they would expect, I have written to the member for Lilley on behalf of all members expressing precisely the same sentiments and join you all in wishing him all the best.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees29719297192971915:42:0029719SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On 7 June 2001, the Chairman of the Standing Committee of Privileges presented two reports. One related to the alleged intimidation of a witness before the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The second report related to the possible unauthorised disclosure of in camera evidence before the subcommittee.The second report raised a number of issues related to the administration of committees staffed by the Department of the House of Representatives, particularly the way in which the in camera evidence was handled. The Privileges Committee recommended the adoption of specified standard procedures for the handling of in camera evidence. The department has reviewed procedures adopted by committee secretariats for the handling of in camera evidence. I am advised that committee secretariats generally comply with the procedures recommended by the Privileges Committee. Practice does not comply with that recommended for all secretariats in two aspects: namely, the numbering of copies of in camera material and the maintenance of a distribution register, and requesting the return of in camera evidence by committee members.The department has taken a number of steps to ensure that secretariats fully comply with the Privileges Committee recommendation. This will include the promulgation of guidelines and a restatement of the need for secretariat staff to be aware of and committed to ensuring the confidentiality of material. The department will also prepare for the consideration of committees which receive administrative support from House staff general guidance material for committee members and their staff on the confidentiality obligations in committee work.The report of the committee and the chairman's presentation statement made comment about the performance of staff serving a committee. The Clerk of the House has advised me that he commissioned a report to him by an independent firm with expertise in the area. He did this in order to prepare a suggested response for me to make in the House following the Privileges Committee report. The overall conclusion of the independent review was that there was not any one deliberate action or omission by anyone serving the subcommittee, nor was there any one serious unjustifiable error of judgment. The reviewer concluded that there was a series of cumulative errors in the judgment by different persons, most not serious in themselves but having a serious cumulative effect. The Clerk has advised me that he has accepted the reviewer's conclusions and that the matter is being considered within the context of the performance improvement processes of the department. The Clerk has also advised me that he has directed that work be commenced as a matter of urgency relating to the conduct of staff appearing before parliamentary committees and the terms and conditions of secondment of staff outside of the parliamentary service assisting committees.297191The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:2971942WF683NMr Danby;Ms HallTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to:(1) our strong support for our independent national public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation;(2) the sustained political and financial pressures that the Howard Government has placed on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), including:(a) the 1996 and 1997 Budget cuts which reduced funding to the ABC by $66 million per year; and(b) its failure to fund the ABC's transition to digital broadcasting;(3) our concern about recent decisions made by the ABC Board and senior management, including the Managing Director Jonathan Shier, which we believe may undermine the independence and high standards of the ABC including: (a) the cut to funding for News and Current Affairs;(b) the reduction of the ABC's in-house production capacity;(c) the closure of the ABC TV Science Unit;(d) the circumstances in which the decision was made not to renew the contract of Media Watch presenter Mr Paul Barry; and(e) consideration of the Bales Report, which recommended the extension of the ABC's commercial activities in ways that may be inconsistent with the ABC Act and the Charter;Your petitioners therefore ask the House to:(1) protect the independence of the ABC;(2) ensure that the ABC receives adequate funding;(3) call upon the Government to rule out its support for the privatisation of any part of the ABC, particularly JJJ, ABC On-line and the ABC Shops; and(4) call upon the ABC Board and senior management to:(a) fully consult with the people of Australia about the future of our ABC;(b) address the crisis in confidence felt by both staff and the general community; and(c) not approve any commercial activities inconsistent with the ABC Act and Charter.27Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby (from 27 citizens) and15Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 15 citizens).2972057783SMs BurkeTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the citizens of Afghanistan are displaced through no fault of their own and urgently require the Australian government to assist in their resettlement in Afghanistan. Your petitioners therefore request that the House review the overseas aid budget to better assist in the resettlement, education and health of the women and children who deserve assistance to lead an improved and equitable lifestyle in their own land.577Ms Burke83SMs Burke (from 577 citizens).2972038383RMr EdwardsTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:We the residents of Australia draw the attention of the House to the unjustifiable actions of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) against the Australian Managed Investments Industry, particularly the investors of those projects commonly known as mass marketed tax effective schemes such as agricultural research/technological based projects and films.We believe the ATO's actions contravene the Tax Payers Charter of Rights. Specifically, by not treating investors individually as required by the Charter and by not informing the investors of the ATO's intention to disallow their deductions at the earliest time possible.Tens of thousands of Australians are directly affected by the ATO's actions as well as hundreds of thousands indirectly through family or employment within the industry. Rural towns are affected and families are feeling the strain.What these investors did was within the law. The investors are now being made to feel like criminals, being labelled `tax schemers' by the ATO irrespective of their reason for investing in the first instance. Investors have received or have been threatened with the issue of amended assessments for thousands of dollars with penalties and interest imposed. And yet, not one investor has been contacted personally by the ATO to ascertain as to why they invested in the projects.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will intervene in this matter by ordering the Australian Taxation Office to:1. halt the issuing of amended assessments to investors within the industry until a test case can be heard in the Federal Court;2. halt the ATO's recovery action in relation to amended assessments until a test case can be heard in the Federal Court;3. cooperate with the industry in regards to the development and speedy hearing of a test case in the Federal Court (at present a number of test cases are ready to be heard immediately).383Mr Edwards83RMr Edwards (from 383 citizens).297213435K6Ms EllisTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of the Electorate of Canberra draws the attention of the House to the continuing closure and down-grading of banking facilities in the Electorate of Canberra. Bank customers have also suffered from dramatic fee and charge increases, whilst bank profitability has reached record levels.Your petitioners request the House to create a Social Charter of Banking to ensure that adequate banking services are provided in all communities, and that banks work with customers to negotiate reasonable fee and service structures. Furthermore, if the banks will not participate in the formation of a Social Charter of Banking we call upon the House to implement legislation to do so through the parliament.343Ms Ellis5K6Ms Ellis (from 343 citizens).29721510N36Mr Martyn EvansTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the failure of the Commonwealth government to recognise the service and provide veteran's benefits to civilian nurses and medical teams sent to Vietnam (SEATO nurses) in times of military conflict.Many of these nurses and medical team members are suffering from illnesses arising from their service and are not being provided with access to services and benefits under the Veteran's Entitlements Act, 1986.Your petitioners therefore request the House immediately act to:1. Recognise the service of these civilian nurses and members of medical teams; and2. Make any changes to legislation or policy as may be required to provide access to these nurses and members of medical teams to health and other services on equal terms to military service personnel engaged in the same conflicts.510Mr Martyn EvansN36Mr Martyn Evans (from 510 citizens).29721238T4Mr Laurie FergusonTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of residents of the state of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House, Israel's continued occupation of the 1967 Palestinian and Arab territories in violation of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, Israel's continued refusal to allow the dispossessed Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland and pay compensation in accordance with UN General Assembly resolution 194, as well as Israel's collective punishments, daily killing of innocent civilians for the last eight months, its economic and military siege of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, its confiscation of Palestinian land and the building of Jewish settlements, all of which are war crimes and crimes against humanity and contravene international law, UN resolutions, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.Your petitioners therefore request the House to:. demand that Israel comply, in full, with the peace process agreements it signed with the PLO, withdraw from the occupied Palestinian and Arab territories in accordance with UN resolution 242 and 338, recognise the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including their right of return to their homeland in accordance with UN resolution 194 and the establishment of their independent Palestinian state, and exert every pressure on Israel to do so.. adopt measures that would help to ensure Israel's compliance with the 4th Geneva Convention, as a High Contracting Party to the Convention. Australia has a contractual obligation under Article 1 of all four Geneva Conventions to do so.. condemn Israel's crimes and expansion of Jewish settlements in the 1967-occupied Palestinian territories and exercise pressure towards those ends.. cancel the tax-exempt status of all fund-raising appeals in Australia for Israel and in particular the discriminatory Jewish National Fund of Australia Inc., until such time as Israel revokes its racist laws against its non-Jewish citizens, withdraws from the occupied Palestinian and Arab territories and recognises the rights of Palestinian people.. increase the financial assistance to the Palestinian people.23Mr Laurie Ferguson8T4Mr Laurie Ferguson (from 23 citizens).297214283NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that the Government take action to preserve bulkbilling and to strengthen the Medicare system. The cessation of bulkbilling by many general practitioners as a direct result of government policy has caused great hardship to many local residents on low incomes particularly the elderly and those with young children.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives introduce legislation to ensure that bulkbilling is preserved and that our Medicare system is strengthened.42Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 42 citizens).297221410IK6Mr LloydTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Federal Parliament.The petition of certain electors of the Division of Paterson draws to the attention of the House the unsatisfactory traffic condition at the junction of the New England Highway and Weakley's Drive.Your petitioners therefore request the commencement of construction of the Weakley's Drive - New England Highway interchange without delay.1410Mr LloydIK6Mr Lloyd (from 1,410 citizens).297229183CMs Jann McFarlaneTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The undersigned citizens and residents of Australia call on you to:. Retain compositional and ingredient requirements for basic items so that meat pies still contain meat and jam contains fruit;. Prevent misleading labelling of low fat foods;. Keep responsibility for food regulation in the Department of health;. Make no tax changes that discriminate against healthy foods.We are among the big majority (90 per cent plus) of Australians who want all foods accurately labelled. It is our right to make informed choices of what we eat.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.91Ms Jann McFarlane83CMs Jann McFarlane (from 91 citizens).29722129683CMs Jann McFarlaneTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of the citizens of Australia.We request the House to amend GST legislation to reflect the fact that sanitary products are not luxury items and as such should be exempt from the GST. Not only are condoms, personal lubricants and sunscreen GST free but also incontinence pads on the grounds that without them, sufferers would be disabled. We believe that the same argument applies to sanitary products and the Federal Government is ignoring the needs of 52 per cent of the population by effectively taxing women for being women.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House heeds our request and legislates for tampons and other sanitary products to be exempt from the GST.1296Ms Jann McFarlane83CMs Jann McFarlane (from 1,296 citizens).2972257583CMs Jann McFarlaneTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that although the government promised that petrol prices would not rise because of their new tax—the GST, petrol prices have increased significantly.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that Mr Howard honours his promise and that the reduction in the excise on petrol would be equivalent to the increase in the GST on petrol and therefore not result in an increase in petrol prices.575Ms Jann McFarlane83CMs Jann McFarlane (from 575 citizens).297224783DMr MurphyTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the continued suffering of the resident of Sydney's inner west caused by aircraft noise from Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport due to:. The Government's failure to keep its promise of building a second airport for Sydney as a matter of urgency;. The Government's decision to sell Sydney Airport (KSA) without requiring the new owner to build a second airport for Sydney. Your petitioners therefore request the House to:. Hold the Government to its five-year-old promise to build a second airport for Sydney as a matter of urgency.47Mr Murphy83DMr Murphy (from 47 citizens).2972365084SMs O'ByrneTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain citizens of northern Tasmania draws to the attention of the House the importance of adequate access to general practitioners in rural and regional areas and the current shortage of such practitioners in the Launceston area.Your petitioners therefore respectfully requests that the House brings to the attention of the Minister for Health and Aged Care the shortage of general practitioners in Launceston and requires action from the Minister to redress this shortage.650Ms O'Byrne84SMs O'Byrne (from 650 citizens).2972314883TMr RuddTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:. That since 1996, over 1,500 bank branches have closed throughout Australia, reducing communities access to financial services;. That since 1996, the fee for a transaction conducted in a banking branch has increased by as much as 400 per cent and that since 1997 banks' fee income from households has increased by 53 per cent;. In the last year the number of complaints made against banks increased by 22 per cent.Your petitioners believe that by closing bank branches and continuing to increase bank fees, banks are not meeting their social obligations to the community.We therefore pray that the House will require banks contemplating further branch closures to:. first provide communities with 12 months notice of such an intention;. also advise communities of the shortfall in the branch's performance which in the bank's view warrants the closure of the branch; and. an opportunity during that 12 months for communities to eliminate shortfalls in the branch's performance and an opportunity to cause a branch closure decision to be reversed.We also pray that the House will immediately implement a `social charter' to ensure that banks properly recognise the needs of the communityAnd your petitioners, as in duty bound, will forever pray.148Mr Rudd83TMr Rudd (from 148 citizens).29723606J4Mr SciaccaTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:That the Australian community recognises that the right to `an adequate standard of living' is a basic human right of all people that governments have a duty to promote, protect, respect and fulfil and not remove this right from anyone as a punitive measure. The right to an adequate standard of living includes, food, clothing, housing, healthcare and education.The community notes that it has been over 25 years since the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. The citizens of Australia are still waiting for the Government to act upon some of the recommendations of that inquiry, including the establishment of an official poverty line measurement.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to:1. That as an immediate step all pensions and benefits be brought up to at least 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings as is the case for the single pension.2. Establish a Royal Commission into poverty in Australia with the aim of developing measures to determine an adequate standard of living for all people and to make recommendations as to how poverty in Australia can be eradicated.60Mr Sciacca6J4Mr Sciacca (from 60 citizens).29723132UK6Mr Kelvin ThomsonTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:. That since 1996, over 1,500 bank branches have closed throughout Australia, reducing communities access to financial services;. That since 1996, the fee for a transaction conducted in a banking branch has increased by as much as 400 per cent and that since 1997 banks' fee income from households has increased by 53 per cent; . In the last year the number of complaints made against banks increased by 22 per cent.Your petitioners believe that by closing bank branches and continuing to increase bank fees, banks are not meeting their social obligations to the community.We therefore pray that the House will immediately implement a `social charter' to ensure that banks properly recognise the needs of the community132Mr Kelvin ThomsonUK6Mr Kelvin Thomson (from 132 citizens).Petitions received.Private Members' Business297242972415:48:0029724Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I move:That this House:(1) acknowledges that the safety of our children should be a paramount concern for all Governments;(2) recognises current safety standards imposed on coaches and long-distance buses include the mandatory requirement that these vehicles be fitted with seat belts;(3) points out the growing evidence, from studies conducted both in Australia and overseas, that the use of seat belts on these vehicles undoubtedly saves lives in the case of accidents;(4) acknowledges that currently hundreds of thousands of Australian school children travel daily to school on buses that are not fitted with seat belts; and(5) calls on all State and Territory Governments across the nation to put safety first and move urgently to at least require all new and replacement school buses be fitted with seat belts so this safety issue is eventually and finally addressed.I rise today to bring this crucial issue of school bus safety to the attention of the federal parliament. Of course, there are many factors affecting school bus safety, but the one I want to focus on is the fitting of seatbelts in these vehicles. I will begin today by acknowledging the presence in the gallery of some dedicated and hardworking parents who have been campaigning on this very important issue, including two of my constituents: Kim Bax and Kim Limberg. These two mums have really worked hard to bring school bus safety to the forefront and to force the Queensland state government into some action. They are passionate; they are tireless. On behalf of the community, I thank them for their continuing campaign.I am pleased to support them and to take this issue a step further by introducing this motion to the House today. Seatbelts have been compulsory in cars since 1972. They have been proven to save lives. There is no question that seatbelts have contributed significantly to a reduction in our road toll per capita over the last 30 years. In fact, despite a huge increase in the numbers of vehicles on our roads, our current road toll per 100,000 people is less than one-quarter of what it was in 1970. Seatbelts are a very much accepted and conventional part of modern road safety, despite the doubts and protests that initially came with the seatbelt introduction just 30 years ago. It is against the law for a parent to drive their child to school in a family car without that child wearing a seatbelt; if they do so, they face fines.As a society, we have gone to great lengths to make sure that parents are aware of their responsibility in this regard, yet we allow hundreds and thousands of children to travel to school each day unrestrained in school buses. This is despite the fact that studies have shown that seatbelts in buses clearly save lives in accidents, just as we accept that they do in cars. In fact, that was recognised in 1992, when the Australian Design Rule 68—which includes the fitting of seatbelts—was approved as a national standard for occupant protection for interstate and long-haul tourist and passenger buses. This was a long consultation process. I would like to acknowledge the cooperation of Mr Bob Brown, the then Labor federal transport minister, whose daughter, I am pleased to say, will be speaking on this issue next. Bob Brown consulted with the state transport ministers, who had to agree to support this national standard for it to be implemented. I would like to acknowledge also the support of the then New South Wales transport minister, now the member for Cook, Mr Bruce Baird; the Queensland transport minister, David Hamill; the Victorian transport minister, Mr Alan Brown; and the Australian Bus and Coach Association, which spearheaded this consultation process so that an agreement could be made with the states. I would like to assure this House that I will be supporting a federal consultation process and will call on all state transport ministers to agree to safer standards for our school buses. I am sure that most Australians would remember the graphic and very tragic Grafton and Kempsey bus crashes in 1989, in which 55 Australians lost their lives. These were followed by several more fatal bus crashes. In September 1990 at Mount Tamborine, in my electorate, 11 people were killed in a horrific accident. It was this succession of tragic accidents in 1989 and 1990 that highlighted the need for national safety standards and prompted action. It is a great pity, however, that most buses are exempt from this ruling, including school buses. In my view, it is only a matter of time before we are faced with a school bus tragedy of similar proportions to the Kempsey or Grafton crashes. Many school buses travel at considerable speeds on roads of varying standards and very often with overcrowded conditions, including children standing in the aisles. We are not talking about an inner city bus route with several stops every few minutes. In my electorate of Forde, like many others around the nation, we are talking about substantial distances on country roads. The simple fact is that accidents do occur on buses—Grafton, Kempsey and Mount Tamborine all demonstrate that sad fact. What concerns and horrifies me as a mother and grandmother is that, if we do not take action, at some point in the future we will be forced to do so in the wake of a horrific accident.As the first part of this motion states, I believe the safety of our children should be of paramount concern to all governments. As parents we know that it is impossible to put a price on the value of a child's life. I am also a realist and know that governments face competing priorities and a wide range of funding demands. Ideally, I would like to see the immediate introduction of compulsory seatbelts on all school buses, including the retro-fitting of seatbelts on existing buses and the purchase of new buses to address the problem of overcrowding on school buses. This is, of course, a state government responsibility, and the estimates as to the cost in Queensland alone range from $322 million to $556 million. I believe that this would be money extremely well spent. I urge the Beattie government to seriously consider leading this debate and taking decisive action on this issue when it responds to the report of the school transport safety task force next month.The motion I am moving today is just a step along the path to securing safer school buses in the future. I believe it is a vital first step. I am calling on all states and territories to support a national standard for all new buses being built, including school and short-route buses, to include the fitting of seatbelts. This will not make our school buses safer overnight but it is a very important first step. It will mean that, as old buses are replaced, the new ones will be safer and that they will have seatbelts. Gradually, there will be a growing expectation and demand for school buses that do have seatbelts as parents become more aware of the differences in the safety standards. In time that will mean the ultimate resolution of this matter. I do not see this as a huge imposition on bus companies. The proposal is not retrospective and it is not about penalising them in any way. It is about creating a safer future for all their passengers, and that is something I know they certainly have a stake in as well.Ten minutes is a very short time in which to discuss this very important issue, and what I have discussed this afternoon is only the tip of the iceberg. On top of the fatality issue, of course, is the fact that we have hundreds of school children injured each year, with chipped teeth, broken bones and split lips, because they were not restrained when their school buses came to a sudden halt. As I said, I believe it would be ideal if governments could outlay the necessary funds to solve this issue immediately. I feel we may not have the luxury of years before we have to deal with a school bus crash of terrible proportions.Last year my constituent Kim Bax wrote to Professor Peter Joubert, a mechanical engineer who headed the committee responsible for the change in design rules after the Grafton and Kempsey crashes. She asked Professor Joubert to assess the likely fatalities in both a head-on crash and a roll-over of a school bus with 103 children, 40 of whom were standing, which is fairly common on our buses. I quote from his response: An impact with another vehicle of equal or greater mass would, in my opinion, give rise to an accident greater than the Grafton disaster. In a roll-over that might occur there is great potential for an equally disastrous event. I would forecast a 40-50% death rate and a 90% injury rate for the remaining children.Losing 50 young Australians and seeing another 50 seriously injured is a scenario that is just unthinkable. But it could so easily happen—accidents do happen. We can so easily take the first step now to ensure that a tragedy of that magnitude is prevented in the future. Since the compulsory fitting of seatbelts on long distance coaches, not one passenger wearing a seatbelt has been killed in an accident—not one. We have to give our kids the same protection on school buses as we give them in our cars. I say to the parents in my electorate: let us get working to bring about change. One step at a time seems sadly slow when we are talking about the safety of our kids, but let us take that first step now. Let us make sure that all new school buses are fitted with seatbelts. If we do not, we will be having this same debate in five, 10 or 20 years. I just hate to think of whose sons, daughters and grandchildren will have to pay the ultimate price in the meantime. I commend this motion to the House and urge all honourable members to support this issue.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?AK6Gash, Joanna, MPMrs Gash—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:58:0029726Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I am pleased to speak in support of this private members motion for the fitting of seatbelts on school buses. I congratulate the member for Forde on bringing it forward. I also congratulate all those parents and grandparents of schoolchildren who have campaigned tirelessly to have seatbelts fitted on school buses. However, while I agree with points 1 to 4 in the member's motion, I could not necessarily agree with point 5. But I was pleased to see that the member clarified point 5 when speaking to the motion. This is a national issue that requires national leadership and national regulation. The Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989:Enables the Federal Government to establish nationally-uniform safety, environmental and anti-theft standards for road vehicles when they are first supplied to the market in Australia. The Act applies to such vehicles whether they are manufactured in Australia or are imported as new or secondhand vehicles. ... ... ...The national standards are kept under review by the Federal Office of Road Safety. In carrying out reviews, the Office consults with other agencies and interests. These include State/Territory road safety authorities, the manufacturing and operational arms of the industry, and representative organisations of road users. In particular, consultation is carried out through the Technical Liaison Group on which all these interests are represented.Under this act, the Australian Design Rules are approved as national standards and become part of the Motor Vehicle Standards Act. In 1992, the former member for Charlton and Minister for Land Transport—83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—Your dad.83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE—My father, as the member for Rankin has acknowledged, introduced Australian Design Rule 68/00, Occupant Protection in Buses No. 3 of 1992, in October of that year. Because of ongoing review, amendments were made by subsequent Labor ministers in 1994. Following the two fatal bus crashes on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales which the member for Forde referred to, a number of provisions were made to make bus travel safer. These included extending the roll-over provisions of buses, strengthening the mountings of the seats—in the two fatal crashes, the seats actually came apart from the mountings—and, of course, the introduction of seatbelts. These initial provisions excluded service route buses, which include school buses, but it was the beginning of staged safety improvements on buses. The initial restriction was made as a result of the staged improvements, with consideration given to convenience and cost. As we discuss the provision of seatbelts on service route buses, the same arguments are going to be raised—and those of us who have children or grandchildren who travel on school buses must answer them and continue our campaign. These arguments include convenience—that is, the regular stopping of service route buses; and enforcement—that is, who will police seatbelts on buses. I think we can answer those and continue the campaign. I do not think that bus drivers can carry the burden of ensuring that everybody on the bus has their seatbelt on, but children automatically put their seatbelts on now. Also, when children get on a bus to go to school, they do not get off until they get to the school. We could also look at the option of inspectors. We currently have inspectors who check bus tickets and things like that. So there are answers to these questions. The former minister, Bob Brown, has recently said that this is probably an opportune time for bus safety to move to the next stage, which is seatbelts in new service route buses which are designed to take the belts. As in all changes which affect the operation of services of this kind, there should be full consultation with industry leaders, industry organisations and industry users to ensure that the changes are sensible, useful, coordinated, properly staged, properly administered, and effectively supervised and policed. I would like to conclude by reading from a message I received from Kim Bax, who is in the gallery. She said:... it's stretching hands across the political divide and saying our kids are more important than politics or any differences the “grown ups” might have.16:03:0029727Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—In 1990, the CWA of New South Wales moved a motion requesting that seatbelts be fitted on school buses. In 1991, the CWA moved that all school children travelling on school buses must have a seat. The result: too hard, too expensive, we will look at it. Today, nothing has changed and we are presenting almost the same motion 10 years later. This is an issue that has concerned me for some time, but I felt that it was one in which I could not make a real difference—that is, until I came into contact with the BUS Action Group, some of whom are here today from my electorate of Gilmore: Mrs Jan Shaloub, Mrs Patricia White and Mrs Glenda Staniford. Without them and their counterparts in Queensland, this motion would not be before the House today. In February this year, a car and a school bus collided in my electorate, resulting in the death of one student and the injury of many others. You might say that we were lucky and that we got off lightly with just one death. When you compare this accident with the more reported tourist bus accidents, I suppose you could make that assertion. But in Gilmore we have 147 towns and villages, and all have children who need to go to school. In many cases, the only form of transport is the school bus, which usually travels for an hour or more each way. In a car, each child has to have a seat and has to wear a seatbelt—it is illegal not to do so. In a plane, each person has to have a seat and has to wear a seatbelt. But on a school bus there is one regulation that says it is okay to have only two seats for every three children. In fact, it is okay to have 110 children in one bus, and it is not compulsory to even provide seatbelts, let alone wear them. How can we justify this? Certainly we all start talking about costs, yet we pay airline stewards to make sure we belt up. We have police employed to make sure we do not break the law by not having our seatbelts on. However, in a situation where you have children, who are notorious for either thinking they are invincible or not thinking at all, we do not even provide a seat let alone a seatbelt to keep them safely in that seat.What is the cost of any one bus accident? What is the cost of any single school bus accident—not just in terms of physical effects but in terms of the ongoing medical, legal and emotional costs? And let us not forget about the drivers. How do they live with the `maybe I could haves' rolling around in their minds, and with the court actions to come? Why don't we just shut up—or should I say belt up—and get on with it, and make a law to provide enough seats in school buses for everyone and seatbelts too? If we had the jurisdiction, maybe we would, just as we did with the interstate coaches. Where state coaches regularly cross state boundaries, and cross Australia, they become matters of national significance, and we can do something about it. But school buses usually travel within only one state; in fact, within one small area, and they are by definition the responsibility of the state in which they operate. To get a national scheme in place to insist on and fund seats and seatbelts in all school buses, every state and territory government would have to agree and come to the federal government and ask us to assist them. So I say to all those women in the BUS Action Group: infiltrate each and every state, and combine with the Australian network of CWAs. Let us make a united effort to insist that, as a start, all new and replacement school buses are fitted with seatbelts and that each child has a seat. Both the member for Forde and I would be honoured to act as facilitators to get the motion going beyond what you are hearing today. We need the political will from every state and territory to make it work. How do we make it work? I call on every parent of every child to contact their own elected representatives in the state and federal parliaments right across Australia. Ring, visit or write to your local state member and get in writing a commitment from each one to support such a move. We need to form an alliance so there is a central point where we can collate the results. Then we can go to work on the elected representatives who either do not answer or do not support this request. When governments of each state see that there is enough interest in the issue to change a voting pattern they will act. Yes, I hear the question: who pays? Naturally, there will be costs to both governments and bus companies, but we have to start somewhere. There will also be a greater responsibility on parents, for it is they who must ensure that their children wear the seatbelt if provided. The issues are now before the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. For this motion to have effect, it is incumbent on all to play a part and to take on the responsibility to not only see that it happens but also make it happen. We must not let the death of Kristian Carruthers be in vain. We owe it to him and his family to see that such deaths never happen again. I for one will not let the matter rest and will work with the BUS Action Group and the CWA to continue to go forward. I thank the member for Charlton for the bipartisan support. I fully commend the motion to the House.16:08:0029728Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—On 7 March this year a terrible thing happened at Gracemere, just outside Rockhampton. A bus was tipped over after it was clipped by a truck. Fifteen children and 11 of the adults on board were injured. Four children and two adults were actually hospitalised. The member for Fitzroy in the Queensland parliament, and a mate of mine, Jim Pearce, was one of the first on the scene, and the sight devastated him. When interviewed by WIN TV News, Jim wept. There must have been a lot of weeping that night. Parents were devastated. No child should be subjected to such a horrifying experience. We in Rockhampton had those children and their parents in our thoughts. In particular, our hearts went out to 13-year-old Hannah Lewandowsky of Mount Morgan. Hannah was thrown through a window and was admitted to hospital unconscious and suffering a broken pelvis. Hannah is a brave girl. Thankfully, she recovered consciousness and was able to make a triumphant return to school at the Cathedral College. But her life, at least for the time being, has changed dramatically. She still experiences brain trauma and problems associated with this condition. I am pleased to say that the whole community has got behind Hannah and her family. Good things can come out of bad experiences, and we took heart in the fact that Central Queensland is a caring community.A major issue arising from the accident was the matter of seatbelts in buses. It is appropriate that we debate this issue because we need to take a holistic view of how to enhance the safety of our children when going to and from school, whether they are travelling by bus, mum's or dad's car, cycling or walking. Parents need to be confident that, when their children leave home in the morning, they will arrive safely home that afternoon. While the bus involved in the Gracemere accident was not, strictly speaking, a school bus, research over the years has confirmed that school bus travel is the safest way students can travel to school. It is safer than travelling in the family car and much safer than walking or cycling. Just days before the accident, the Labor government in Queensland had announced the formation of a task force to examine and further improve school transport safety measures in Queensland. The task force, headed by medical professional and Chancellor of the Queensland University of Technology, Dr Cherell Hirst, handed down its interim report last month. The task force will continue to consider submissions received from the community and consult with experts before reporting its recommendations within the next six months. If you are interested in the issue of school transport safety, I recommend that you read the report. The report looks at all aspects of school transport safety, not just bus safety. On the matter of bus safety, seatbelts are just part of the story. That point is highlighted by the fact that, of the 10 bus related fatalities in the past 10 years, nine involved students walking to or from a stationary bus. It is true, however, according to a New South Wales Department of Transport report, that seatbelts reduced the risk of injury by up to 20 per cent, compared with a 50 per cent injury reduction when worn in cars. The point of the report is really that governments need to take care in making decisions. The Federal Office of Road Safety's 1995 guidelines for voluntary modification of existing buses and coaches to improve occupant protection pointed out that wall-side passengers restrained by belts can be at greater risk of side-wall intrusion or roof collapse in a rollover crash. So it seems that this is not as straightforward as it may first appear. A Rockhampton bus driver, contributing to the debate on seatbelts in buses, said that she was concerned that, had the children in the rollover at Gracemere been wearing seatbelts, they would have been left hanging upside down.To refit buses with seatbelts is an extremely expensive exercise. Queensland Transport advises that bus operators who retrofitted seatbelts to existing buses paid between $110 and $660 per seat. Last year the Queensland government surveyed bus manufacturers and learned that the cost of fitting out one bus with lap belts was $10,000 and that lap-sash belts would cost $30,000 per bus. This is a large figure and may not achieve the safety outcome desired, because it is not only a matter of attaching the belts to the seats; seat and anchorage reinforcement is essential, otherwise, the belts will be useless if the seats collapse in a crash. Before we spend the money on what may well be a partially effective solution, we need to examine more comprehensive solutions. We cannot put a price on the safety of our kids, but we owe it to them and the children of the future to get this right.The research compiled in this report demands that we recognise that the causes of death and injuries related to school travel are multiple. As decision makers and road users, we should not seek to take false comfort in convincing ourselves that there is only one solution to preventing injuries to children travelling to school. We should keep an open mind and be ready to consider a whole range of measures, from seatbelts to safety education, lower speed limits and the design of bus routes and bus stops. I agree with the member for Forde that all governments need to be concerned about the safety of our children, and this includes the federal government. I commend the member for Forde for bringing this issue to the attention of the House.16:13:0029729Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I, too, commend the member for Forde for moving this motion for the fitting of seatbelts on school buses. The safety of our children should be of paramount concern for everybody, not just all governments. It is by coincidence that a few weeks ago I was in the Circular Head district in my electorate. Like other members, we have many country hamlets and a lot of buses have to travel a long distance with many students. I spoke to the Smithton Primary School and they told me about an issue related to their bus safety. I suggested to them that they take up that issue and do some surveys, and they did. I would like to share with you some practical examples behind the purpose for raising this private members business. Their letter read: Dear Mr Sid Sidebottom,I'm writing to say `THANK YOU' for coming to tell us about what you do and for showing us that children can have their opinions heard—as well as represented. The letter goes on:You encouraged us to go on with our problem which was that some buses in our area are overcrowded.We did as you suggested and gathered some facts about our problem.We have enclosed some information from a survey about a country bus and interviewed some people and the bus driver on the bus.Our main problem is that we are not safe because...and they list the following issues:There are 52 adult seats BUT up to 80 children to sit on these—We all know the instances of three to a seat when it should be two, and that is of great concern in any form of accident and in terms of comfort and safety and behaviour. The letter continues:In the three seated seats there are big sized kids.Very uncomfortable.Pupils are disruptive.Our bus has an hour route.Some children sit on the stepVery noisyBus driver has to stop and turn around—a very important safety issue. It goes on:Not enough room to store luggage.Seat belts don't existIt is a Human environment—which is very apt, and they go on:Cannot eat or drink. I'm sure we are not the only BUS that has problem.We hope the Government can solve the problem.Thank-you again for helping us.Yours Sincerely,Serena Bland & Bethany ArmstrongI would like to share with you some of the comments from their survey. They said:If we went to school from Grade 1 to Grade 12 [on the bus] we would sit in uncomfortable positions of 3 to a seat for ... 2 hours a day ... 5 days a week ... 40 weeks a year ...12 years.This equals 200 full days [24 hours] sitting cramped in a bus seat!!!!! For a student's school life.The survey itself was very interesting, and I will try to summarise some of it. It asked:Do you think the bus is over crowded?All of the students surveyed said yes. The survey asked:Do you have adequate room to sit comfortable?This is very important for bus safety. We talk about seatbelts but, in fact, behaviour of students on the bus is absolutely crucial. One of the students said that in the back seat, yes, there was enough room. The majority of others said no. The bus driver when asked, `Is the bus overcrowded?' said yes. Another question asked:Do you think that pupils would be less disruptive if they had more room to sit?They all said yes, they would be less disruptive. The survey asked the driver:Do the students need more room?The answer was yes. The survey asked:Do buses need seat belts?I found this rather interesting. It was a fifty-fifty split. Most were unsure and most said no. The bus driver was asked whether the students would wear seatbelts and he said that that would be up to them. Another question to the students was:Would you wear a seat belt?Again, it was fifty-fifty, yes-no, which I found interesting. Finally, they were asked whether they would or would not wear a seatbelt and why. Those who said yes said they would for safety reasons. Those who said they would not said that it was `uncool', that they could not move easily, and that seatbelts were too uncomfortable. I find that a really interesting response to that question.The key to this is behaviour on buses in terms of safety—and we could discuss that until the cows came home. It is very important that codes of behaviour are understood. It is absolutely crucial at home that parents inform their children about what is required of them, and that on the roads drivers are aware of children and of school buses, particularly when they pull up. In the United States, of course, they have the rule that, when the lights are flashing, vehicles stop. I think that is something that may well be looked into in Australia, along with clearer identification of school buses, and road rules surrounding buses, buses that have stopped and students using those buses. It would be great to have every bus with a sculpted seat for every child and every child supplied with a seatbelt. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.2973116:19:0029731Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I move:That this House:(1) remembers the Australian soldiers and sailors who served in hazardous conditions in close proximity to the atomic testing at both Maralinga and Monte Bello Island;(2) acknowledges that many of these soldiers and sailors have since died from the radiation effects of that testing;(3) acknowledges that many are still alive and suffering from a variety of illnesses related to their service in these hazardous areas;(4) calls on the government to seek compensation from the British government who conducted the atomic testing and used Australian servicemen as experimental guinea-pigs; and(5) calls on the government to amend the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1991 to include these servicemen as veterans and thus ensure their entitlement to vital medical care.Mr Speaker, I rise to speak today about the Australian service men and women who were involved with the atomic testing at Monte Bello Islands, Emu Field and Maralinga. The Second World War ended abruptly in 1945 with two nuclear attacks on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, resulting in some 120,000 civilian casualties outright and a further estimated 70,000 from radiation poisoning in the months and years that followed. The United Kingdom had been researching nuclear weapons since the late 1940s but the demands of the war had kept their research program lagging behind more immediate priorities. Due to the lack of cooperation between the wartime allies in nuclear research, the British government decided to initiate its own independent program in 1947. In September 1950, British Prime Minister Clement Attlee wrote to Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies, who was enthusiastic about Australia being used as a nuclear test site by the British military. It must be remembered that Mr Menzies took the decision to allow Australia to be used as a testing site for these abhorrent weapons, without telling his cabinet, let alone the rest of parliament or the Australian people. The first test, Operation Hurricane, was conducted at the Monte Bello Islands, 120km off the north-west coast of Western Australia. This site was chosen by the UK government to assess the impact of an atomic explosion in a port or harbour situation. Australia provided aircraft, base stations and facilities, the HMAS Hawkesbury and its crew, and were given observer status for two meteorological scientists—although these scientists were not allowed access to the test results.On 3 October 1952 the 1,000-tonne warship HMS Plym was anchored off Trimouille Island with a 25-kilotonne nuclear weapon in the hold. At 0800 hours local time this ship was blown away and the British military at last had access to its own nuclear capacity.One eye witness to the May 1956 blast wrote:At the end of the countdown there was a blinding electric blue light of such intensity I had not seen before or ever since. I pressed my hands hard to my eyes then realised I could see my hands covering my eyes.This terrific light power or rays were actually passing through the tarpaulin through the towel and through my head and body. For what seemed ten to twelve seconds, it may have been longer. Afterwards the pressure wave which gave a feeling such as when one is deep underwater. This was then followed by a sort of vacuum suction wave to give a feeling of one's whole body billowing out like a balloon. Further atomic tests were conducted at Monte Bello and Emu Field and then Maralinga in South Australia. During the tests, military personnel and the traditional owners were exposed to the effects of radiation.This private member's motion has come about due to the persistent and relentless battle of a constituent of mine, Keith Harrison, who has campaigned for appropriate compensation for servicemen who had been exposed to the atomic testing on Australian soil. In 1952 Keith was a sailor on HMAS Hawkesbury and spent six months attached to the British fleet during the atomic testing. HMAS Hawkesbury was anchored 11 miles from where the bombs were detonated, and the crew were told to simply turn their backs during the explosion. Keith in recent times has suffered major health problems relating to his naval service but, because he is not classified as a veteran, he has not been able to obtain access to a gold card which would entitle him to full medical benefits. Keith has recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer.I will also give details concerning another serviceman, Victor Herman, who was similarly exposed to the atomic test blast at Monte Bello. Victor was conscripted for compulsory six-month national service training in August 1952. Having previously been a member of the RAN reserve, Vic was posted along with other national service trainees to HMAS Murchison. The Murchison patrolled the eastern side of the Monte Bello Islands and the Royal Navy patrolled the western side. For three days the Murchison sailed in an area ranging from 10 to 20 miles from the blast area. On the day of the nuclear blast, the crew were all assembled on the upper deck and then informed about the pending atomic blast test. This was the first time they had been informed that the test would take place. The crew were told to turn their backs away from the blast, which was about 12 miles away, and not to turn around until after the initial blast. This was a gross act of negligence, considering the information that was available after the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.When the crew turned around, the telltale mushroom was beginning to form and the crew watched the spread of the radiation cloud creep across the sky for a number of hours. The Murchison then continued to patrol the eastern side of the Monte Bello Islands for another two to three days. Sailors aboard the Murchison and the Hawkesbury showered and swam in contaminated waters during their time at the islands. The Murchison returned to Shark Bay, where the crew were required to chip off old paint and repaint most of the ship. This proved to be a 24-hour operation.Most of the participants in the atomic tests have suffered nuclear related health problems, with Vic himself having a tumour removed from his bladder, and his prostate removed because of cancer. There are many who would say that compensation cannot be granted because the scientists at the time did not know the full effects and therefore no-one was to blame. That is a debatable point because many of the scientific papers have been locked away from public scrutiny. However, it is clear from the McClelland royal commission report in 1985 that, as the testing program went on, more stringent safety procedures were put in place. An Atomic Weapons Test Safety Committee, the AWTSC, was established which supposedly monitored safety. The royal commission was scathing of this committee, claiming:The AWTSC failed to carry out many of its tasks in a proper manner. At times it was deceitful and allowed unsafe firing to occur. The mere fact that more safety procedures were required in my view demonstrates that the scientists knew that the tests were having a harmful effect. Why else would they require more safety? Yet they proceeded all the same, placing Australian service men and women in extremely hazardous situations.The Liberal senator Sir John Carrick expressed another argument used by those who opposed compensation in 1986, and that was, `The royal commission could not find anything.' To those who use this argument, I would point out that it appears now that certain documents that were extremely pertinent to the investigation were withheld from that commission. No wonder they could not find out anything. Whether they knew or not of course is not relevant. The current Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Bruce Scott, is quoted in the Adelaide Advertiser on 16 May this year as saying: Our primary responsibility is about the health and wellbeing of the personnel involved. That's our responsibility.I agree. That certainly is the way we all feel. But my question then is: why is he denying veteran status and the access to medical benefits to those servicemen now?What Mr Menzies and the scientists knew at the time is irrelevant; that is history. This motion today is not about history; it is about justice. Governments of both persuasions have denied the justice sought in this motion today, for various reasons, but time is running out to see that justice is served. This is a shameful period in our history—allowing another country to explode nuclear weapons on our soil and then using Australian citizens as test guinea pigs. Recently uncovered paperwork confirms this. Of course, governments have always found it difficult to acknowledge acts of shame perpetrated by their predecessors.We know what the effects were and still are, even if those at the time did not. It is time that we owned up and forced the British to own up, and it is time that we honoured those men whom we sent on hazardous duties. It is time that we looked after our servicemen properly, now that the illnesses caused by these duties have arisen. I urge the House to support this motion.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! Is the motion seconded?7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:29:0029733Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion on atomic testing and compensation for ex-servicemen which has been brought forward by the member for Greenway. There were a series of British nuclear tests in Australia at Maralinga, Emu Field, and Monte Bello Islands in the Indian Ocean, in the 1950s and 1960s. Later these British tests were also at Christmas and Malvern islands in the Pacific Ocean, but no Australians were involved. The Australian tests enabled Great Britain to develop and extend atomic bombs and, later, fusion and hydrogen bombs. The tests occurred with the full cooperation of the Australian government at that time. Australian and British personnel were involved in the tests. There were military and civilian participants.The government acknowledges the service of Australian service personnel during the British atomic tests program conducted at Maralinga, Emu Field and Monte Bello Islands during the 1950s and 1960s and is committed to meeting its responsibilities to the participants in the British atomic testing program. As the member for Greenway said, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs did say that our primary concern has to be for the care and welfare of the people involved. Evidence of the government's commitment to this aim is the commencement of the scientific process to ascertain the impact of the test program on the health of Australian participants.The member for Greenway mentioned that in the 1980s the Labor government held a royal commission into atomic testing—according to some of the veterans involved the results were unsatisfactory—but that it ignored many of the recommendations and findings, including a recommendation to establish a nominal roll of the people who participated in the tests. There have been many assertions about the health and mortality of the Australians involved in these tests, such as those contained in the motion brought forward to this House by the member for Greenway. None of these claims has been established conclusively by scientific studies or analysis.The mortality and cancer incidence study that the government is undertaking will provide an indication of the nature and extent of any health problems suffered by atomic test veterans. After this study, the government will assess the need to conduct any further studies. The first step in this study is the development of a preliminary nominal roll of Australian participants in the tests program—something which I think is long overdue. The nominal roll currently includes the names of some 8,126 former members of the Royal Australian Army, Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force and the names of some 8,590 civilians. I think it is important to stress that compensation, including medical treatment, is already available to veterans for any illness or injury as a result of their service. Any Australian ex-service member who considers that they have suffered an illness or injury related to the tests program can make a claim under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 through the military compensation and rehabilitation scheme administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. There is no conclusive evidence— although there are some documents that have come to light in recent times—that Australians were used as experimental guinea pigs. This is an allegation that was specifically denied by both the United Kingdom and Australian authorities responsible for conducting those tests. Archival documents relating to this issue support this and have been examined by officers from the Department of Veterans' Affairs.Australia has secured an ex gratia payment from the British government towards the clean-up operations. This is an important recognition of the fact that the British government needs to do something. I believe it should do a little more once we have completed the mortality and cancer incidence study. With respect to the issue of hazardous conditions, in the past hazardous service has only been declared for service outside Australia in support or preparation of peacekeeping or peace monitoring services, and then only in respect of defence service personnel since 1972. Since the late 1980s, successive governments have taken the view that the Veterans' Entitlements Act coverage for atomic tests participants was not appropriate as the service was not overseas operational service, and that current compensation arrangements are sufficient.I believe it is important that we establish some scientific data and some scientific research as quickly as possible, because—as the member for Greenway said—time is moving on and many of these people have obvious health problems. It needs to be established once and for all whether these problems were caused by the atomic testing or whether there is some other reason for it. I am certainly pleased that the government is going forward with the mortality and cancer incidence study. Hopefully once the study has been completed we will have the full information that will provide the evidence we need to establish once and for all whether there is a need for further compensation or entitlements for those involved in the atomic tests. The government has a proud record on its care of the veteran population—a record that I am very pleased to be able to support.As our veteran population ages—as it will for those who were involved in the atomic testing—their health care needs will change significantly. By 2007, two-thirds of all veterans and war widows with gold cards will be over the age of 80. The coalition is committed to developing innovative and flexible health care programs for the ageing veteran community, while continuing to meet the needs of younger veterans. A couple of things we are doing as a government include establishing a consultative forum between Defence and prominent ex-service organisations to promote dialogue between current and former ADF personnel on defence personnel matters and establishing a national ex-servicemen's roundtable on aged care to examine future initiatives to provide assistance to aged members of the veteran community and their carers in the decade ahead. Some of the initiatives which the government is going to put in place may be of assistance to the people who were in the forces at the time of the atomic testing in the 1950s and 1960s.I am sure that they will welcome the fact that the member for Greenway has brought this motion to the chamber to continue the discussion about the needs of those people who were involved in Maralinga and other atomic testing conducted in Australia by the British government. As well, I have a number of constituents in my electorate who are very concerned and have suffered incidents of ill health—and, in many cases, cancers— which they believe have been brought on by their exposure to radiation during these tests. I know that they are very keen to see that this matter continues to be examined by the government and that at some stage we have a definitive result for the people who were involved in these tests. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to speak on this motion brought before the House by the member for Greenway. 16:38:0029735Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—It is with a great deal of pride that I rise to speak in this House as the seconder of this motion on atomic testing and compensation for ex-servicemen. I would like to put it on the record that I compliment my colleague the honourable member for Greenway for bringing this motion before the House. The issue of compensation and recognition for our Australian servicemen and civilians who took part in the British government testing of atomic weapons in Australia is something which has gone on for far too long. It is now time for the Australian government to deliver justice to these people. In what is a very dark chapter of Australia's past, the British government conducted 12 major, and hundreds of minor, atomic tests, as has already been stated in the House today, at Maralinga, Emu Field and the Monte Bello Islands between 1952 and 1963. An estimated 16,000 Australian defence personnel and civilians took part in those atomic tests, and it has now been confirmed that some Australian servicemen took part in `clothing trials', where they were exposed to unsafe levels of radiation. I believe that the full extent of the harm these tests have done on our human participants and on our environment has still not been properly realised by any Australian or British government.The extent and the details of the atomic tests were not fully examined until the McClelland royal commission, which commenced in July 1984 and reported in November 1985. The royal commission made a number of recommendations and conclusions. One of the recommendations of the commission was the establishment of a national register of ADF personnel and civilians who played a part in the conducting of the tests or the associated clean-up operations and who we now know were exposed to radiation. Only recently has a register of names been created. However, despite the McClelland royal commission and its recommendations, the Australian personnel and civilians who served at the test sites still have not received the adequate compensation, recognition and entitlements they surely deserve.In May this year, the British government finally admitted that Australian military personnel were exposed to an area of low level fallout to test the effects of radiation on clothing. I have a feeling that this is perhaps only the tip of the iceberg in finding out the whole truth about the atomic tests. Previously, the British government had denied that Australian troops had been used as what many people have called guinea pigs or had been exposed to radiation during these tests. Many of the atomic veterans are currently suffering or have died from serious illnesses, and more than half of the original veterans have already passed away. Time is running out for the Australian government to deliver justice to these people. To the minister at the table—and I am glad he is here for this debate—I say that I do not believe this is a political issue. I believe both sides of the House have to be united in this, because we are talking about human beings who, through no fault of their own, were exposed and did not realise the seriousness of it or the consequences that could come from it.Only a handful of our 16,000 Australian military personnel and civilians have been compensated for their roles in the atomic tests, and still the atomic test veterans do not have access to the same entitlements as those people who served in the theatres of war. I feel this is a national disgrace, and I am sure the minister would agree with me. These servicemen were involved in large-scale atomic tests which were conducted by the British government on our soil. The veterans' fight for recognition and entitlements has been given more legitimacy now that it has recently been confirmed that some Australians were exposed to higher than safe levels of atomic radiation. I am appalled to think that these Australian personnel and civilians were exposed to atomic radiation by a foreign power on Australia's own soil with the permission of the then Australian Menzies government, and yet we are still fighting today tooth and nail to get them compensation.Now that the British government has made admissions in relation to Australians being exposed to radiation, action needs to be taken by either the Australian government or the British government to assist with the related health problems of our atomic test veterans. I strongly urge this government to seek compensation from the British government for those Australian personnel and civilians. I also urge the government to amend the veterans' affairs act so that the same entitlements can be extended to the atomic test veterans as are extended to our other service men and women. This is much more than a political issue, and we do not want to shift blame onto past governments or go on and on in the debate about who is right or wrong. It is about fairness; it is about justice; it is about recognition. These Australians have been badly done by, and we should now recognise that they have a legitimate right to seek compensation and medical entitlements. While monetary compensation might not erase the pain and suffering that many of these people have endured, it would show that the Australian government is sympathetic to their concerns, and a move such as allowing these men access to the gold card would be a recognition that these people have suffered a gross injustice. The West Australian newspaper reported on 28 July that Australia remains the only developed nation in the world that has allowed a foreign power to detonate atomic weapons on its soil. Whilst we cannot turn back the clock, we must realise that these compensation claims and the fight for medical entitlements for the atomic test veterans are a way of reminding future Australian governments of the risks involved in volunteering Australian land and Australian defence and civilian personnel to foreign powers. (Time expired)16:43:0029736St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I also rise today to talk on the motion before the House on atomic testing and compensation for ex-servicemen which was moved by the member for Greenway. The issues he has raised are certainly sensitive in anyone's terms and have been going on for a long time—there is no doubt about that. I am sure the whole House acknowledges the service of Australian service personnel during the British atomic test program that was conducted at Maralinga, Emu Field and the Monte Bello Islands. It is hard to believe that it is 40 or 50 years since these tests took place as part of a program to develop weapons of war in the 1950s and 1960s.We are committed to meeting the government's responsibility to the participants in the British atomic testing program. Evidence of this government's and this minister's commitment is the commencement of a scientific process to ascertain the impact of the test program on the health of all Australian participants. Some of the health issues have been raised by members this afternoon, and we have heard about the growth of concern as time has gone on. There have been many assertions about the health and mortality of the Australians involved in these tests, such as those contained in this motion. They have not been established by any scientific studies or analysis. Obviously those sorts of tests need to be done. There needs to be proper evidence put forward.On 16 July 1999 the minister announced a cancer and mortality study of atomic test veterans. This will allow us to decide if current compensation arrangements are sufficient. The consultative forum for the study and for the scientific advisory committee met in Canberra on 30 July this year. The first step in the mortality and cancer incidence study was the development of a preliminary nominal roll of Australian participants in the test program. The department has completed this nominal roll of participants. Delay in completing the nominal roll was due to the need for regulation to allow the department to gain access to the lists used in the earlier study, which was known as the Donovan study, of the early 1980s. The lists obtained from that study had many gaps. It was a detailed, exacting task for the department to check those primary records to fill in as many gaps as possible. The roll has to contain sufficient personal information to enable adequate data matching against the National Death Index and Cancer Registry. Since the draft roll was published, the roll has been refined in the light of public input through the consultation process. The current version of the roll contains about 16,700 names comprising 8,000 or more Defence Force personnel and over 8,500 civilians, including 10 indigenous persons. The Australian Defence Force break-up is about 1,657 for Army, 3,211 for Air Force and 3,268 for Navy. I would like to stress that compensation including medical treatment is already available to veterans for any illness or injury that results from their service. Any Australian ex-service member who considers they have suffered from illness or injury related to the test program can make a claim under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 through the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Scheme administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. There is no evidence that Australians were used as experimental guinea pigs. This is an allegation that was specifically denied by both the UK and Australian authorities responsible for conducting the tests. Archival documents relating to this issue support this and have been examined by officers of the department. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate29737Question proposed:That grievances be noted.2973716:49:0029737Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—An issue of great concern to many people throughout Australia is the insurance industry and the many problems that are being experienced in relation to that industry. Every day a new concern is raised with me about insurance companies increasing their premiums, denying liability, and promising one thing when touting for business and delivering another when a claim is made. At the extreme end we have the HIH collapse and the enormous hardship that that collapse has caused to many thousands of Australian families, businesses and professionals like doctors, lawyers and accountants. Every sector of our community and economy is suffering as a result of that collapse. The most frightening aspect of that collapse is that APRA and ASIC, the bodies responsible for monitoring the insurance industry, have failed dismally in their duty to the Australian people.Australian people do not have a choice as to whether or not they have insurance. We insure our health. We have only to turn on the television and look at the government's multimillion dollar advertising campaign to encourage us to take out health insurance. We insure our homes. That is a requirement of obtaining a mortgage. Businesses need insurance to operate. The minimum standard to register our cars is to obtain a green slip, which is issued by insurance companies. Community organisations need to get public liability to be able to hold events. There is also professional indemnity. Insurance is a safety net that Australians rely on for protection. Unfortunately, in recent times the power of Australian insurance companies has increased whilst at the same time their accountability is diminishing. Ordinary Australians—pensioners, families, small businesses and volunteer organisations—have been the losers. On the one hand we have the industry increasing its power and making greater profits with less accountability and on the other hand we have ordinary Australians who are being affected by this.The problems with the insurance industry in this country really reflect the government's priority, which is to the big end of town and not to the ordinary Australians. `Profit before people' is this government's motto. We have to see how it was dragged kicking and screaming to have a royal commission into HIH and how the terms of reference are very limited. However, it is a very different matter when we look at the royal commission into the building industry. In recent times I have been inundated with complaints about the insurance industry, the most obvious example being HIH, from people from all areas within the community: home owners, builders, accident victims and people with professional indemnity insurance. Ordinary Australians are being punished and as a result we have had a massive increase in premiums. I have here a letter from Mrs Betty Mawdsley, who lives in Swansea. She had been attending an exercise group for people between the ages of 60 and 80. She had been doing that for six years but the group had actually been going for some 20 years. Recently, the classes had to be wound up, simply because of the increased premiums for public liability insurance—the person who was conducting those classes could not afford to pay it. This has created an enormous gap in those women's lives. Volunteer organisations are being told that they will not be insured if they have people over the age of 70 or 80. Two historical societies in my area have recently been denied insurance because of the age of those people who are involved. On the one hand we have the Treasurer urging people to become involved and undertake volunteer activities, but on the other hand we have insurance companies denying coverage to those people. Recently, I was in the electorate of Blair and I learnt about how the great watermelon and grape festival had an enormous increase in their public liability insurance. It had gone from $900 to $2,000 and was really threatening the viability of that festival. The tin festival in Cairns had to be cancelled because of the massive increase in the price that they were required to pay for their insurance. My understanding is that it was three times higher than it had been the previous year. I am sure the members on the other side of the House are most concerned about that. This government's performance when it comes to the protection of the Australian people in this area is to be condemned. The government is only interested in protecting its friends at the big end of town. It has allowed premiums to skyrocket, whilst ordinary Australians are placed at risk.One of the most horrendous miscarriages of justice and manipulation of the system that I have come across relates to a claim made by Mr Vaughan of Jewells, a suburb that lies within the electorate of Shortland. His son was involved in a car accident, and when the matter was heard in court the court found in favour of GIO, based on the evidence. The GIO misrepresented the case. They advised that the policy had been rejected when in fact it had not been. They offered an ex gratia payment of $14,000, less the full premium, less the excess, no indemnity, no liability and with an agreement to take no further action. This was not accepted by Mr Vaughan, because it had enormous implications for his son. This matter has been to the Department of Fair Trading in New South Wales and to the Insurance Inquiries and Complaints Commission and, unfortunately, the matter has not been resolved. The issue at the heart of the question related to the duty of disclosure. When the renewal was completed by Mr Vaughan, he did not advise that he had been fined within the previous 12 months. The question was not asked but the duty of disclosure still existed, and on that basis his claim was denied. As I mentioned earlier, he had 90 days to complete mediation with the GIO, and then the matter was referred to the Insurance Inquiries and Complaints Commission. That is supposed to be an independent mediation body but it is financed by the insurance industry. Then the matter was referred back again. They said that nothing could be done: the matter was outside their jurisdiction because it had been heard in court. Then Mr Vaughan contacted the Insurance Council of Australia. They referred it back to the IEC and they declined to answer because the matter was confidential.The bottom line is that this man has been denied justice. His son has subsequently been refused insurance because the court found that he had made a fraudulent non-disclosure, and the matter is still unresolved. Mr Vaughan has corresponded with the minister on numerous occasions about the need to change the legislation, but the minister has failed to act. This is just one example of the power of the insurance industry and the failure of the government to protect ordinary Australians. This is definitely a government for the big end of town, one that ignores ordinary Australians and the many problems that they have in their lives. (Time expired)2973816:59:0029738Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN3E4MoncrieffLP10—Germaine Greer is reported in our newspapers today, talking about Australia needing to become truly Aboriginal. I am not totally sure what she means by that, because I can only go on the newspaper reports and they are fairly scanty. But—knowing Ms Greer—I am sure that, whatever the speech was that she gave, it was an intellectually profound one, and I would certainly like to know a little more about it. The subject that I wish to speak about today has to do with racism and Aborigines in Australia. I note that the member for Grayndler is at the table. He has heard me say an amount of this before. On Thursday, 9 August I had the privilege of launching the Australian Non-Government Steering Committee of the United Nations World Conference on Racism and Related Intolerance community action kit—a kit that this organisation is promoting within the Australian community—relating to a United Nations World Conference which will be held in Durban in August/September of this year. I have no idea why they asked me to launch it but I was flattered to be asked and so I accepted.As I thought about what I might say at that launch, I thought about my own journey on the subject of racism, which I think has been the journey of Australia over a good part of the past 60 years. I was born in Australia during the very dark days of World War II and grew up in postwar Australia, being schooled essentially in the late 1940s and through the 1950s. The Australia in which I grew up and in which I was taught certain things was a different country in many ways from the Australia of today—but, importantly, still the same country.These days Australia is at the forefront internationally on issues of human rights— and racism is, of course, an issue of human rights. The conclusion I had to draw, as I thought through my own experiences, is that racism does not necessarily come naturally to anyone; it really does have to be taught. I recall very vividly being told, when I was at school, by a teacher—in a totally non-malicious way—that the Australian Aborigine was a dying race, that their genes were what are called recessive and that they would therefore breed out, and that a day would come when there would be no more Australian Aborigines. This teaching was not, as I said, malicious. In fact, it came hand in hand with the exhortation that our Christian duty as white Australians was to `smooth the pillow of the dying race'. In other words, we had a responsibility to Aborigines, but they were goners anyway because of their genes.At the same time, unbeknownst to me— and this will sound strange—my family had neighbours who were Aborigines. What was strange is that I did not know they were Aborigines. I lived in a city at a time when there was very little exposure of city people to Aborigines. They were good neighbours and they were my playmates, along with others. They had dark skins and black curly hair and dark brown eyes, but then I had another playmate who had creamy white skin and flaming red hair. I knew that people looked different, and the way this family looked—because they looked different from other people—just did not mean anything to me. I was in my teens before someone made a chance remark about the fact that this family was Aboriginal, and I was quite startled. I thought: `Oh! Is that what an Aborigine looks like?' All I had ever seen was in my school readers pictures of natives sitting in rather dusty and drab conditions outside gunyahs out in the bush—that was my image of Aborigines.This is why I think the racism that was felt towards Aborigines traditionally was one that was taught, and it came from ignorance. We have journeyed a long way from then. They were the days of White Australia—of the yellow peril—and these were also things that were accepted without question at the time, because they had been part of the credo of Australia for many years. When I started to attend university in 1960, I came into contact with a lot of Asian students who were studying at our universities and I got to know people of different races. It was that knowledge which started to change my views on the subject of race, and I believe it was that increasing exposure of Australians as students, let us say, at university—which was still a very small percentage of the population in those days—and the growth of Australian affluence and tourism to Asia that meant that, as Australians came to know these people they had only heard about in terms of yellow peril in the past, the White Australia policy broke down quite naturally in this country—to the point where, by the 1970s, we were the most significant country in terms of assistance to Indochinese refugees and those who were starving in Asian countries as a result of civil war. It has been my own personal privilege to have served in this parliament with the first Aborigine ever elected—Neville Bonner, a man whom I hero-worshipped. Just to know him was to have a lesson in humility. I have to mention in this context the matter of the Bringing them home report. One of my early political memories was of sitting in a political meeting and hearing someone propound the theory that the solution to the `Aboriginal problem' was to take the children away and bring them up as white children in white families, and that would solve everything. Showing Aboriginal children how white children lived would mean that they would all just be like us. I had completely forgotten those episodes until the Bringing them home report came out, and then I remembered with great guilt that I had sat and listened to those sentiments and had said nothing.The thing that really struck me as I read the Bringing them home report of the stories of the parents and the grandparents who had their children literally dragged away from them, was that it was as though people in those days did not believe that an Aboriginal mother was really like a white mother or that an Aboriginal grandparent was like a white grandparent. They did not accept that they would have the same emotions, feelings and bonds with their children that we, the rest of Australia, had. We do know better now. I have had the argument put to me on this subject that really it was not any different for white women, that single mothers had to give up their children. That is true to some extent, except that they did not have to give them up in the same way that Aborigines had to give their children up; they did have a choice. The pressures that were on them— the stigma that attached to single motherhood—however, meant that many of them thought they did not have a choice, and that for the good of the children they should give them up for adoption.I remember an institution in Brisbane, run by the Salvation Army, which was called a `home for wayward girls'. This building actually had bars on the windows. Young pregnant girls who were unmarried went there to spend their pregnancy out of the sight of everyone, and there they were in what was a virtual prison. That was the attitude towards single motherhood in those days. So we did discriminate against certain white mothers, but there was not the element of force with no comeback for white mothers that there was for Aboriginal mothers.I have thought a lot about racism, and I have observed with interest what has happened in Australia recently. The term `reconciliation' seems to mean whatever the person who is using it wants it to mean. However, it is my own view that, until Aboriginal Australians and all other Australians live comfortably with one another, we will not truly have come of age as a nation. I do not believe that Australia deserves all of the opprobrium that has been cast on us recently on the subject of racism. I think we have come a long way and it has not been forced on us; it has been forced on some Australians but, by and large, the change in attitudes has come spontaneously from the Australian community. I have confidence that if we work together, if we do not try to tell Aborigines what we think is good for them but work with them, reconciliation can happen—and I hope it comes sooner rather than later. I therefore welcome the activities of this non-government steering committee. I do not agree with everything in their kit; I think they are a bit tough on us in some ways. But we have to continue to work on that educative process. (Time expired)2974017:09:0029740Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—Today I want to talk about an issue that has concerned the Speaker and many other persons in this chamber. It is an issue on which we are not making much progress. I refer to the absence of serious discussion of philosophical ideas and vision in relation to our society and the fact that we are becoming more and more pragmatic in the development of policy—without having an overall conception of where we are going as a society and, indeed, what the philosophical differences may be between the various political parties. I have been in this place for some years, and there was a time when there was a lot of emphasis on philosophical differences—on differences of perspective, on visions for the future. I was interested in an editorial in the Age the other day that said, `Well, it's good that the Treasurer, Peter Costello, has come up with some ideas about a vision for society, because we haven't had much discussion about that from the government.' But it could also be argued that the Australian Labor Party have become more and more pragmatic in their approach, and it is very difficult to get much sense of philosophy and direction with respect to where they are going. There have been some attempts by some individual MPs to develop some ideas about society and even to have a debate in this place about our conceptions of society. Unfortunately, it is not something that has been particularly pursued.This is very unfortunate at the current time, when we are faced with the problem of trying to come to grips with the phenomenon of economic globalisation and all it is creating in the world. We have had various political responses to economic globalisation, some very wild and some very tempered. Everyone expresses concern about the consequences of globalisation, but not very many people are actually addressing the issue of how we can come to grips with it. I believe that in this place we should be encouraging much greater debate on different ideas about how to come to grips with the problems being created by economic globalisation and the internationalisation of markets and the consequences, especially the social consequences, on people living in various areas—not just in rural areas but in different suburbs of Australia where factories may be closing down, or where there may be social consequences of being left behind by the pressures of economic globalisation. Indeed, there is no doubt that the meaning of social justice in our society is forced to change. There need to be new ideas about social justice as a consequence of what has happened with economic globalisation.One thing that I agree with Mark Latham about—he has written extensively on this issue—is that economic globalisation forces us to rethink our ideas about social justice. I do not necessarily agree with Mr Latham's `third way' or his solutions in relation to social justice issues, but I think it is important for us to address these questions.Unfortunately, the tendency in this House has been the opposite. Rather than there being greater emphasis on ideas—and I sit here as an Independent and watch this place, especially at question time—there has been more and more bickering over personality politics. This bickering and fighting is taking place not only in this chamber but also within the political parties and within the various groups and factions of the political parties. Personality politics has reached a very high level in this country—as distinct from debate about ideas, philosophies, vision and direction. Genuine thinkers are not the ones who are preselected to go forward in the political parties. People who have written on ideas about how we can move forward— and I do not just mean academics; I mean people who have engaged themselves with visions of society—are not necessarily taken into account in all the fighting that occurs over things like preselection in the various political parties. The personality politics has reached a level that is totally unacceptable, in my opinion, and that has led to smear politics in our society at all levels. The media have a role to play in this, because they seem to grab onto this rather than onto the discussion of the ideas being put forward.I was pleased to see that in a speech last week the Treasurer decided to float some ideas on society and social justice. He is capable of doing more than what he has already done, and he is capable of putting forward more ideas. I know this because I once taught the Treasurer and I know that he is capable of that sort of policy thinking. However, we need to hear more from him than what he has already floated. It was interesting to hear his ideas on society and the role of society vis-a-vis the marketplace, as they were quite different, were a welcome breath of fresh air from the Liberal Party, which has focused so much over the years on the huge role of the marketplace while placing insufficient emphasis on the role of society. It is also interesting to see that the Treasurer's ideas are not that much different from those of Mr Latham, who put forward a range of ideas about the `third way' when he spoke about a concept of social justice which is quite different from that of the traditional Left and the traditional Right. I too believe that we should be developing concepts of social justice that are alternatives to those of the past. We can do this when we try to come to grips with economic globalisation. I agree with those who think that globalisation in the economic sense is here to stay, and that there will be other forms of globalisation in the information age. Some of those forms will be positive and some will be negative. We cannot turn back the clock; we have to come to grips with this.In this regard, I agree with one of the other few contributors to this thinking process, the honourable member for Denison, Duncan Kerr, about the need for the problems of globalisation to be dealt with at an international level. In a paper that I gave in July 1998 entitled Economic globalisation and the need for a new international policy response, I talked about the need for us to develop international responses to the globalisation phenomenon, the need for more action on the social and cultural agendas internationally, and more action to limit the excesses of the marketplace internationally, so that we can balance the social, cultural and economic considerations.This is not the time to make a big speech about this. I am focusing on the need for us to have a greater focus on ideas and discussion. In other countries, especially in Western countries at the moment, there is much discussion and intellectual fervour about these issues. That is not happening in Australia. We need to have more of that. We need to discuss ways and means in which Australian society can help to develop a response to economic globalisation—one which makes sense and which is based on fairness and a new concept of social justice. However, we will not do that if we limit ourselves in our political debate to the narrow agenda of trying to score points, with one party against the other, on very small issues, without a sufficient vision of the future.I would like those people with some vision, some idea about the future and some ideas about responses to globalisation to go forward. This is one of the issues—and it is only one; the other major issue has to do with multicultural and immigration questions. My position on those issues—which I will talk about in another speech—has led me to declare that I will be standing again as an Independent in the next election. (Time expired)2974217:19:0029742Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—There are 147 towns and villages in my electorate of Gilmore, each of which I endeavour to visit twice a year. As a result, I spend a lot of time at street stops sitting at my little card table outside the local shops. In watching the way people walk and talk in their local communities, I have noticed a change, especially in the older people who now clutch their purses, wallets and bags of shopping for dear life. They spend a lot of time looking behind them, crossing the street if there are strangers on the footpath and so on. Even when they stop for a cup of tea with a friend at a café, they hang onto all their stuff, and rather than look at one another as they speak, they continuously look about them as if predators are about to pounce on them at any minute. Indeed, predators are out there. They are the gutless people who would see an older person as an easy mark, someone they could knock over pretty easily and snatch things from. The perception amongst older people I have listened to is that they are being specifically targeted, and the Bureau of Crime Statistics seems to prove that perception to be correct. The incidence of crime against our older citizens is increasing. I find it appalling how older people are too frightened to come to the door or to open it fully to speak to anyone. As an elected representative who does a lot of home visits, I really notice these days how often people speak through the door or through a locked flyscreen door. When I ask why they are doing that, the answer is usually the same: if someone is not trying to attack you, they are trying to steal things from you or to con you out of something. The front door has become the enemy territory. They say that it is just better to leave it locked as then nothing can happen. Over and over, I hear stories of thefts taking place while the owners were home, either in their yard or actually in the house. In a way, it makes sense to lock the house and leave it that way because you then do not forget to lock it again after seeing someone off. However, that also has its downside. We humans are supposed to be the ones that do not need caging, but many of my constituents are living in virtual cages and it distresses me to see that. Having your house totally locked up maximises the insurance coverage and it can lower your premiums, but what of the older lady who was burnt to death just the other evening? Fire authorities have not yet completed their investigations, but it seems that she may not have been able to break out of her home. Why are our senior citizens choosing to live in this way? It is because they are afraid. Many live in fear most of the time, and whether or not there is a reason to do so is immaterial. Their lives are directly affected by that fear. Sixty per cent of my letters are from constituents who are aged victims of crime. I asked people to give me their stories, and many who did were older people. In many instances the police were not available at the time. Some victims were interviewed days later. This is not an attack on our police; they too are working to the best of their ability, within very tight constraints. Even when police were on the scene and perpetrators were arrested, the perpetrators were often back on the street long before the victim was. Let us look at why the people who have built our country, who have contributed their efforts and who now deserve some peace and relaxation are living in fear. If you were desperate for money, and in the street you saw two people with handbags possibly containing money, would you attack the one who was likely to be bigger, quicker, louder and less likely to fight back strongly and remember your every detail, or would you go for the person who was smaller, weaker and less likely to resist? Yes, I am generalising, but the writing is on the wall: older people are at greater risk.The clear-up rate on these kinds of attacks is usually quite high. The police in my electorate of Gilmore have a particularly good record of catching these criminals through innovative programs they have designed to discourage this kind of crime. However, would you think twice if an attack on an older person guaranteed you double or triple the sentence imposed in respect of another victim? That is what I am suggesting. Truth in sentencing has changed attitudes somewhat. In the main, criminals are serving the punishments they are given. Now let us give our senior citizens a bit of support and security. I call on the New South Wales government to double the normal sentence on the first offence if the victim is over 65 and if necessary triple the sentence on the second offence. How dare criminals prey on our older people! I want older people to be able to live with dignity, not cower like animals behind bars in their own homes, or scuttle around the streets like cockroaches, fearing being jumped on at any moment. I have written to the New South Wales Attorney-General asking that he draft legislation to implement this suggestion as soon as possible. I have also sent a copy of my letter to the New South Wales shadow attorney-general asking the same thing. Remember that there is to be an election in that state in 2003. That is just enough time to get it passed into law or suffer the consequences.I am fed up with victims having to suffer and pay the price whilst perpetrators get the benefits of counselling and general sympathy. Who stops to consider the effect of such an assault on our elderly? The elderly victim ends up severely bruised, with skin ripped open and often bones broken for their trouble. I have seen that on many occasions. And to an older person, a broken bone, particularly a leg or a hip, as often happens when they are flung to the ground, can mean the end of their mobility, the end of their quality of life or the end of life itself. While one senior gets away, thousands of others do not. Doubling or tripling penalties is not enough on its own. Much more needs to be done. Even the Aboriginal elders in my electorate tell me the same story. They say that there is not enough respect for older people. How true that is! It seems that our generation and that of our children have been moved to drop responsibilities. People are now able to quickly and easily access divorce and we have to force them to the table to uphold their responsibilities for their spouses and children. Through contraception we give way to responsibility for self-management, and the culture of `me first' seems to rule supreme. The consequent lowering of the sense of responsibility for one's self and one's actions is part of the problem that our society now faces. We all need to take responsibility, not just turn away and say that it is up to someone else, that it is too hard, or `I don't want to be involved.' We are letting down our next generations by allowing that kind of social decay to happen.Not so long ago we heard about shootings in other countries and marvelled at how such things could happen. Now they are here in Australia almost every day. Are we to continue travelling down that track, following in the footsteps of America and others? I think Australians are smarter than that. We have always prided ourselves on finding other ways to combat problems, to see them as challenges and to change our approach. But at the moment I despair, for each day we start with news of another bashing and robbery instead of being positive about all the good things in life, especially the good, positive things in Gilmore. In the meantime we need to protect our most vulnerable from those with no guts and no morals. Already I have sent petitions around my electorate asking for support for our older people. But we can do more than this, and we are.In Gilmore recently a pilot project was announced, funded by this federal government, to establish a civilian cadet scheme. One hundred students will be able to participate in a scheme that promotes teamwork, leadership, practical training and plain good fun. Those cadets are non-military and they will learn some core subjects together and go off to their respective agencies for specialised training. Those agencies include most of the volunteer emergency agencies, such as the Rural Fire Service, the SES, surf lifesaving clubs, the Red Cross and government agencies such as national parks. Our own local schools are leading the way in this program. In that way there will be things for our young people to do, and the pilot project will lead to other civilian cadet units being formed to cater to those young people who are not at school but who are of school age.I am not by any means blaming young people for all crime against older people. The vast majority of young people in Gilmore are working hard to make their mark in life and to get on with their careers. But there are a few who are bored and idle and who have no interest in keeping social norms. Some of those we have been able to help with an innovative scheme in Gilmore called Shoalhaven Student Support. Under that program, a man amongst men named Simon King works with local schools to assist young people who are at risk of falling through the net as they move on to senior secondary school or to other training, or go out into the workplace. Simon gives those young people ways of earning self-respect and the respect of their peers. Through all sorts of challenging activities they create new friendships, new interests and opportunities for their futures. No society can benefit from some people attacking others more vulnerable than themselves. I would like to show them that there is another way of life and that it does not have to involve attacking older people.In Gilmore we are building a bright future for ourselves. Through working together we are creating an exciting atmosphere of opportunity for ourselves and our children. Along with the strong economic growth in Gilmore, we regularly see the concurrent strength of our community spirit. It is that spirit that makes sure that people in need and people who are less able than others are looked after by their community. Attacks on people are just not on. Attacks on those who are over 65 years of age are in direct contrast to that community spirit and they have no place in my electorate.2974517:29:0029745Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—It is appropriate on a cold, miserable day like this one in Canberra today that I talk about one of the favourite parts of my electorate, the Capricorn Coast. The communities of Yeppoon and Emu Park are situated on the Capricorn Coast, a virtual paradise with one of the best lifestyles around. It is the sort of rapidly growing community you would think that this government would support in terms of meeting its aged care needs. Yet the Liberal Party, and let us not forget the National Party as well, have turned their backs on the Capricorn Coast. It is difficult to understand this neglect in such a vibrant community. Not even the typical coalition opportunism you would expect in a pre-election climate has spurred on this government to address aged care needs on the Capricorn Coast. I would welcome one of those prime ministerial backflips to address this problem.Because of its lifestyle, the Capricorn Coast has become very popular amongst retirees. Retired people from other parts of Central Queensland and beyond move to the coast and establish a comfortable retirement surrounded by people with similar interests and supported by many community groups catering to retirees. The trend is clear and well established, but it is starting to create problems as the people who moved to the coast to retire age and find that the health and aged care services they need are not keeping pace with the demand. Unless aged care needs on the coast are addressed now, we will be failing the increasing number of people requiring aged care services in the future.This issue has been firmly on the agenda for well over three years. I can remember as a candidate in 1998 being briefed by workers in the aged care sector on the coast about the desperate need for more places, especially in the area of dementia care. Of course, the handling of aged care in this country has gone from bad to worse over the intervening three years under Minister Bronwyn Bishop. When the minister is not capable of guaranteeing residents of some nursing homes the basics of personal hygiene and medical attention, I despair of her ability to manage issues such as the strategic planning of current and future needs or delivery of the thousands of phantom beds now sitting on blueprints from one end of regional Australia to the other but far from being turned into bricks and mortar.We may well have to wait for a Beazley Labor government to establish the Medicare alliance to ensure that priorities are identified and needs are met. We may also have to wait for the Beazley Labor government to develop more effective models of delivery of aged care services to ensure that the needs of those requiring care are met. We may also have to wait for the Labor government to pursue alternatives to the present aged care planning regions, so that we can move towards a more integrated care system responsive to the needs of individual communities, rather than maps and spreadsheets in a Canberra office. But the longer the wait, the greater the problem will become.While overall Fitzroy region figures show that bed numbers are above the national benchmark, the region is geographically large and diverse, and consequently the distribution of those beds means that the story in each community within the Fitzroy region can be quite different. For example, the Capricorn Coast figures are well below the national benchmark currently and, as a popular retirement destination for increasing numbers of people, the coast will be left well behind unless action is taken immediately.Based on benchmark figures and using statistics compiled by a local consultant in 1999, the Capricorn Coast is experiencing a shortfall of 46 places. We have 1,769 people aged 70 and older in the Livingstone Shire and, with the benchmark being 100 places for 1,000 people aged 70 and older, we have a reasonable entitlement to 177 places. That translates to 159 residential and 18 community care packages. As it stands, we have only an unacceptable 110 residential places and 21 community packages. Sure, we have an excess of community packages, but our overall shortfall is too great. The pressure on beds on the Capricorn Coast is enormous. For example, the government nursing home attached to the Yeppoon Hospital has 40 beds, and I am told that it is constantly full. Some 15 per cent of the people aged 70 and over in the Fitzroy aged care planning region live in Livingstone Shire, but they only get 7.5 per cent of the high care beds in the region. It is important to remember that these are not meaningless figures on a piece of paper. Local nursing homes are feeling the pressure of high demand for high care places. At least one facility that I know of is providing care to residents over and above what they are funded for. The home is carrying the cost because of the management's commitment to residents and the knowledge that there is nowhere else for them to go. The Capricorn Adventist Retirement Village presented me with a petition earlier this year to seek funding to operate a nursing home at the village to meet the growing need that it perceives. This petition has been brought to the minister's attention, and we will see in this current round of allocations whether the message has been heard. The Capricorn Adventist Retirement Village wants to build a dementia specific residential facility on site at the village and actually could have started building years ago. The management of the village has the capital but has been held back by the failure to obtain an allocation of recurrent funding for places— this, while phantom beds have been allowed to proliferate across the country. The management of the Capricorn Adventist Retirement Village wants to build this facility so that people resident at the moment in the independent units and in the hostel can age in place and, as they require higher levels of care, can stay near friends and family and in familiar surroundings.Just last week the RSL announced its intention to apply for an allocation of places for an integrated facility incorporating low, high and dementia care units. I believe that, depending on the results of a local survey, the RSL is open to the idea of building either on the coast or in Rockhampton. Although I have specifically referred to these two providers, who have informed me of their plans, there is no question that I will lend my support to any aged care provider from the region who is willing to listen to the community and to propose a project based on the particular needs that have been identified.I am very proud of the way this issue has been handled on the coast by the various aged care providers and the Livingstone Shire Council, who have put the needs of the community first. There has been a great deal of cooperation and recognition that the fight to secure aged care places is one that must be taken up by the whole community and the question of who actually delivers the service is a secondary consideration. As I said before, we are already playing catch-up when it comes to providing adequate aged care services on the Capricorn Coast, and we cannot afford to ignore the fact that pressure on those services will increase over time.Projections based on four per cent growth are that in nine years time Livingstone Shire will have 2,515 people aged 70 or more. In 1996 Livingstone Shire had a population of 23,156, with 2,371, or 10.2 per cent, aged 65 or older. By 2016 the total population of Livingstone Shire is expected to almost double to 41,000, with the number of residents aged 65 expected to be more than 6,000, or 15 per cent. Can this government appreciate what this means if aged care services do not keep pace with the population growth?Couples after many years of marriage are being split up in Central Queensland because there is not suitable care for both of them in the one place. In one case I know of, one spouse is in Yeppoon and the other is in Rockhampton. Rockhampton is about 40 kilometres away from Yeppoon, the main town on the Capricorn Coast, but for elderly people who have lived together for sometimes 50 or 60 years it might as well be 500 kilometres away. The one case in particular that I am thinking of involves Bernie Lee, a resident at the Capricorn Adventist Retirement Village, whose wife had to move to Rockhampton for appropriate care. He is driving up and down as regularly as he can, but he himself is an elderly man. It is really quite heartbreaking to think about the pain that the couple are going through because of their forced separation.This trend towards the coastal communities for retirees is becoming very common. People set up their retirement, they make friends and they develop support around them and it is cruel and unfair to make them give all of that up once they age and become frail and require high levels of care. Just because they require high levels of care does not mean they love their spouse and family any less or have less need for the company and support of the friends they have made over the years. I think particularly of a friend of mine at the Capricorn Adventist Retirement Village, May Forrest. She is not a well lady—she has had a few setbacks over the last year—but all the time hanging over her head while she is trying to regain her strength and recover is the fact that she may have to leave behind the people she loves and move away into Rockhampton or even further away to get the care she requires should she not recover fully. It is not fair to have that hanging over her head. In his defence of the total and utter rejection of the Country Liberal Party in the weekend's Northern Territory election, the Prime Minister has said that the election was decided on local issues. That is not a defence but a warning to the Prime Minister: voters do care about local issues and you do not get an issue any more local than this one. The question hanging over the heads of hundreds of elderly Capricorn Coast residents and their families is whether they will be able to access adequate and appropriate aged care services in their local community when the time comes. Will they be able to live out their lives surrounded by their loved ones in their local community?The government has a perfect opportunity right now to start putting this shortage right. The Fitzroy planning region has been allocated 20 nursing home places, 30 hostel places and 10 community care packages. I call on the government to have a good look at the correspondence from the coast over the past three years and make a detailed analysis of the aged care needs that exist in that community. (Time expired)2974717:39:0029747Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I rise today to speak about an issue that has been almost 10 years in creation. Back in the times when there was last the coincidence of a state Labor government in Queensland and a federal Labor government here in Canberra a lousy deal, almost done in the middle of the night, transferred a local, very busy road called Kessels Road and its continuum of Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road and its feeder road of Granard Road onto the federal highway list. The gazettal of that as part of the national road freight corridor has of course caused a great sense of pain and suffering to tens of thousands of residents throughout my federal electorate of Moreton. It is interesting to know that it was the last time when a Labor government was in power here and a Labor government was in power in Brisbane that this occurred.It is very frustrating to note what has been said by the Queensland Minister for Transport, a very lousy man called Steve Bredhauer, who thinks if you see a strip of bitumen the problem must be fixed. He comes from up the honourable member for Leichhardt's way but I am not going to blame the member for Leichhardt for the poor performance of the Queensland transport minister. The minister has said to the Queensland parliament recently that he is getting a bit sick and tired of me on this issue to do with Kessels Road. I can assure you that, if Minister Bredhauer is sick and tired of me now, he had better grab that oxygen bottle because it ain't going to stop as far as I am concerned.The simple fact of the matter is that residents in my electorate have been given a lousy deal by the Australian Labor Party and the minister in Queensland could not care less about it. I have been campaigning in recent months to try and upgrade my approach on this with a call to remove the toll which exists on the southern Brisbane bypass—the link road of the gateway arterial on to the Logan motorway. Take the toll off. For heavy transporters, the B-double trucks that thunder along Kessels Road—this arterial corridor transferred by Labor 10 years ago—there is a toll of $7.80 each way. And if they go over the Gateway Bridge over to the north side of Brisbane that is another five dollars on top. It is the best part of a $26 round trip for trucks, and with margins so thin in the trucking industry because of higher competition, it is no wonder that truckies are not using this magnificent purpose-built four-lane freeway—now a tollway, although it was never going to be a tollway; it was meant to be built like a freeway and to operate like a freeway, but of course the state government put a toll on it. This southern Brisbane bypass should have the toll taken off it and taken off it now. The Queensland government, ever so hungry for money to build things like footbridges over the Brisbane River or to upgrade Lang Park into a super stadium— which nobody in Brisbane believes is the right way to spend their money—cannot see the sense in taking the pressure off residents in my electorate, pressure that has been placed upon them with no permission gained in the last 10 years. In fact, before the southern Brisbane bypass link was completed in the mid-nineties, local residents were told for many years that once this thing was opened the truck traffic would come off Kessels Road and the busy suburban roads would be returned essentially to the use of the local community. Let us just say that none of that has occurred at all. Residents in areas like Upper Mount Gravatt, in Robertson, in Macgregor, in Salisbury, in Coopers Plains and even in Rocklea have had to put up with the direct effect of trucks thundering through, many in the middle of the night, many disturbing the sleep that people rightly would expect to have.Last week, I was doorknocking around residents of Upper Mount Gravatt and I was encouraged greatly by the comments from local residents, who said to me, `Don't walk away from this fight. Get the toll off the southern Brisbane bypass. It is the most sensible solution to our problem. It will liberate us from the pain and suffering, the added stress, of having to put up with all of these trucks and the pollution, both noise and air, that they create.'It is not just the people who are directly along this road who are affected—the effect is all through the southern suburbs of Brisbane, even along Beaudesert Road at Moorooka, along Ipswich Road at Annerley, along Fairfield Road at Yeronga and up through Fairfield along Venner Road. People along Venner Road have now got to put up with trucks which are finding their way around the toll.It is no surprise how out of touch Steve Bredhauer is. He should perhaps consult a few of his colleagues when he stops and thinks about how sick and tired he is of Gary Hardgrave on this issue. The Transport Workers Union secretary in Queeensland, Hughie Williams, a man who is not known for beholding himself to any Labor Party policy—he speaks freely and strongly for the rights of transport workers—said on 5 July:They [truck drivers] often avoided the Gateway tolls because the margins in trucking are so small and the charges are too high.My point exactly. I am pleased to have the support of Hughie Williams for my efforts. The state Labor member for Yeerongpilly, the Hon. Matt Foley, who is a minister in the Queensland government, said on 5 July to the Southern News:The option (of cutting the toll) is a fair one.So another minister in the Queensland government understands better than Minister Bredhauer. Of course, Minister Bredhauer keeps saying that he is sick and tired of me. Even the local state member for Mansfield, Phil Reeves, knows that the toll is the key to getting the trucks off local roads. In May this year, he suggested that the new electronic toll collection system, `e-toll', would provide an incentive for trucks to use the Southern Bypass rather than the Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road/Kessels Road corridor. He said that in the Queensland parliament on 30 May this year. If Mr Reeves is making some sort of proposition that making the payment of the toll easier would impact upon whether trucks would use one particular road or another, he is, in his own codified way—because he is a junior member in the Beattie team—sending a message of support for my efforts. I appreciate Mr Reeves's support, Matt Foley's support and Hughie Williams's support. I ask Steve Bredhauer why he is not acting on the legitimate concerns of well over 1,000 residents who have written to me in recent months to tell me to keep it up.The only response that has come from the Queensland government is a department to department deal to get the Commonwealth to fund $1 million to survey the corridor. The Queensland government are determined that it must be just that road corridor. They do not understand that McCullough Street, Sunnybank; Padstow Road, Eight Mile Plains; Warrigal Road; Arcoona Street, Sunnybank; Granadilla Street, Macgregor; Mains Road, Macgregor; and Troughton Road—I was nearly run over by a couple of big trucks on Troughton Road, Coopers Plains, the other day—are roads that are alternative routes for trucks. When the Goodwill Games are with us in a couple of weeks time, the Queensland government will shut down Kessels Road between 10 o'clock and 11 o'clock at night for four nights. They believe that it is better to get the spectators of the Goodwill Games out of QEII stadium easily, but they still do not understand that that is peak hour for trucks. Somebody rang me to say that at 11.30 on Monday night last week a truck tore past her as she drove down Kessels Road. She sped up to try to catch the truck. She confessed that she gave up when it hit 100 kilometres an hour. These B-Double trucks thunder along this road. There are no police patrols because there are only two police cars on the road at night on the south side of Brisbane. There is no direction to trucks from this Queensland government; there is only abuse from the Queensland transport minister.Of course, a $1 million study is an old trick. In 1995, my Labor predecessor pulled one of these too, when $1 million or thereabouts was given to the Brisbane City Council to look at traffic planning on the south side of Brisbane. It was no coincidence that that roughly mimicked the boundaries of the electorate of Moreton. The report never saw the light of day. The old trick of pulling out a survey or a study that will report in 12-months time is designed to try to stop my ongoing efforts to represent my constituents, who have legitimate concerns, over the months leading up to the election.I remind members also that even the Brisbane City Council have now put $50,000 down on the table—more money taken out of my area—for yet another study to look at getting the trucks off Beaudesert Road, Moorooka. The Southern Bypass Road is a beautiful purpose-built road, perfectly designed like an autobahn in Germany, but they have slapped a toll on it. As a result of putting a toll on the road, they have completely disturbed and distorted the traffic patterns of the south side of Brisbane. We do not need a $1 million study for this. We do not need any more furphies from the Queensland government, saying that only one in four trucks will come off. What we need is for Steve Bredhauer to get a bit of reality—to listen to some of his caucus colleagues, to listen to what the residents in the electorate of Moreton are saying and to get the toll off the Southern Brisbane Bypass. Get the toll off. The trucks will use that road. The trucks will come off the suburban streets. They will not be running past big schools like Macgregor and Coopers Plains and people will have less stress. (Time expired)2974917:49:0029749Byrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE008K0HoltALP00—I draw to the House's attention tonight an article written by Gerard McManus in yesterday's Herald Sun, which highlighted the ineptitude and corruption that exists within the Defence Estate Organisation and its head contractor Asset Services. It is a story of truly terrifying proportions. A brief summary of the shameful behaviour in the Defence Estate Organisation includes a state-of-the-art naval hospital at Cerberus, which has no safe drinking water five years after opening. This same hospital, in the minister's electorate, has a leaking roof, a leaking floor slab and numerous other structural flaws. There is a new sewerage pipe at Cerberus, which for three years has pumped raw effluent towards inlets leading to the Western Port bay.This is sadly the tip of the iceberg. What we need—and this is the fourth time I have called for it—is an independent inquiry to be carried out by anyone outside the defence department. The defence department just cannot be trusted to manage its own affairs. The last internal audit report, completed by the Inspector-General's Management Audit Branch in September 2000, has not been acted upon. The basic finding was that half the allegations, such as those listed above, were proved correct. With the other 50 per cent, the paperwork simply did not exist to work out what was happening. You have to ask: why hasn't anyone been sacked or sued? Some people, whom we know have been involved in this mismanagement, were actually promoted after September 2000. My particular interest in this matter has been drawn by the treatment of a local company, Ridgewell. I want to touch on some of the concerns that I addressed to the minister and on the minister's response. I allege again here tonight that the minister has been misled by departmental officials who have a vested interest in the outcome of this inquiry. I will summarise the problems with this local proprietor: there were continuous alterations to the scope of work required under the contract by Asset Services, which took 12 months to rectify and delayed the completion of contracted work—this was for remedial works to the Junior Sailors Galley at HMAS Cerberus; non-payment of delay costs by Asset Services to Ridgewell, specified in a Defence short-form contract, has been $250 per day after the nominated completion date and now totals $91,250; victimisation and intimidation of Ridgewell's staff by Asset Services staff; threats from the senior manager of Asset Services to prevent Ridgewell from being awarded future contracts for services if Ridgewell pursued a claim for the delay costs; a request for Mr Ashman to sign a blank short-form contract, in contravention of departmental guidelines; and a request for Mr Ashman's company, Ridgewell, to sign a new novated contracted with the Defence Estate Organisation for a sign-on fee of $24,950. Ridgewell is now no longer on the selected contract listing for the Defence Estate Organisation, which appears to be as a result of Mr Ashman's current complaints.These concerns were drawn to the attention of the minister, and the minister gave a response indicating that, on the advice of some of his bureaucrats, there was no potential difficulty. I want to address some of those responses in more detail, but I have, as I said, some concerns about the individuals who provided the advice to the minister. The minister responded to my letter on 10 July, and my concern was: did the minister seek the advice of the department solely, or did he seek the advice from Asset Services, the head contractors at Cerberus? Further, did Kitty Marmanidis of Defence Estate Organisation, a principal person involved in this—a person who has already been subjected to allegations of incompetence and mismanagement—provide advice, along with Tony Sullivan, the state manager of Asset Services? Another question I would put to the minister is: was he aware that the aforementioned people both requested Mr Ron Ashman of Ridgewell Pty Ltd at different times to sign a short-form contract which would have covered up previous incompetence and mismanagement by Asset Services and the Defence Estate Organisation? Further, if the minister has received advice from Kitty Marmanidis, was he aware that she was the same project manager who managed the contract for the school of languages at RAAF Base Williams at Laverton, which was built in a hole? What actually happened was that it was flooded, even though the probabilities, as provided by Kinhills engineering, were that it would happen only once every 25 years.In terms of the responses by the minister to some of the points that I have made about claims of continuous alterations to the scope of works, was the minister misinformed? We have documentary evidence that it took Mr Ron Ashman of Ridgewell 12 months to receive a completed scope of works and contract after winning the tender in November 1999. The Defence Estate Organisation forgot to put in tiling for the Junior Sailors Galley at Cerberus, which cost over $100,000. This was not a minor alteration. I have sighted minutes signed by Mr Ron Ashman of Ridgewell and Peter Barnes on behalf of DEO accepting cost delays of some $24,000. Is this the mysterious sign-on fee everyone talks about when there is a cover-up, or is it really an acceptance of delay costs? Does this paperwork exist anymore in DEO? I expect not. With respect to the behaviour of Asset Services staff: firstly, the minister has advised me that Asset Services is competent and professional. But that is not what the minister's internal investigation by the Inspector-General suggested. We have evidence of thuggery and threats by Asset Services staff and collusion with DEO. What moved Mr Tony Sullivan, the manager of Asset Services, to write a letter of apology to Mr Ashman of Ridgewell if someone was not behaving unprofessionally? Could it be Mick Swarris's threats to send Mr Ashman bankrupt? There were also threats about future involvement in future contracts. Is the minister aware that DEO offers tenders on a Friday to be completed by Monday—which is a rather unusual practice? But if you are a mate of Asset Services, you get single, select tenders to carry out works in barracks closed some time ago—like Mr Beech, who, amongst other things while working as 21C at Asset Services, appears to now have a very successful business tendering for contracts at Cerberus and other places. We again have evidence that the minister's department is deceiving him and that Mr Ashman was removed from the preferred tender list because he questioned the practices of DEO and Asset Services. In addition, there was a request to sign a blank short-form contract. I have copies of an email which shows that Mick Swarris and Tony Sullivan of Asset Services requested that Mr Ashman sign a blank short-form contract and that he involve himself in corruption. They went as far as requesting Mr Ashman to price a new scope of works for the same project at Sale and submit a new invoice and issue a credit note for the previously issued invoice. There was also a request to novate an existing contract. The minister advised me in his response that the payment of $24,000 mentioned by Defence Estate Organisation and Asset Services was for works already completed by Ridgewell. The problem for the minister and others is that we have copies of minutes which indicate that this payment was for delays in the project, not for works completed, which is a separate issue. These are the same delay costs that everyone now denies exist. What has happened to Defence Estate Organisation's and Asset Services's copies of the minutes of the meeting? Why did Defence Estate Organisation's solicitors undertake the work for Asset Services when they are meant to be acting for DEO?There are further issues that I would like to raise. How did Asset Services win the comprehensive maintenance contract after being involved in so many muck-ups in previous contracts for the Defence Estate Organisation? How did Mr Tony Sullivan know in January 2000 that Asset Services had won the contract for the comprehensive maintenance work on the Cerberus when it did not close until February? Mr Sullivan was so certain that he even indicated to people whether they would keep their positions. 1 wonder whether the other tenderers, John Holland and Transfield, had similar foresight. If they had, I suspect they would not have put in a tender. What inside information did Asset Services have that no-one else did?How did Asset Services win the comprehensive maintenance contract tender even after an inquiry by the Inspector-General's management branch, requested by the secretary of Defence, found that allegations about missing documentation for $235 million worth of work were true? They found that 50 per cent of documentation for contracts for buildings was missing, and they simply could not work out what had happened with the other 50 per cent. Worse, the minister thanked one gentleman involved in whistleblowing in April 2001, but the problems continue. Why hasn't the minister sacked anyone? My understanding is that those who were involved in the fraud have actually been promoted. What happened to the senior manager of corporate services and infrastructure of DEO, Kitty Marminidis, who built a school of languages in Laverton in a hole? She obtained a promotion, even though the person has no architectural experience. Why weren't the project consultants, such as Kinhills, required to fix their problem? Why was another contract let to fix the problem at taxpayers' expense, and who took responsibility for the flooding of the rooms? The senior managers at Asset Services received bonuses for works completed. Do you think this is dangerous when there exists a temptation to cover over problems to ensure that works are supposedly completed? When Mr Ashman requested delay costs because of Asset Services and DEO muck-ups, he was threatened and told he would never get another tender from Defence. This is apart from the earlier threat to send him bankrupt if he did not sign a blank scope of works and short-form contract to remedy earlier muck-ups of Asset Services. My question to the minister is: why does the department continue to mislead him and deny him accurate information about what actually occurred? It is in the minister's best interests to get to the bottom of this and to have an independent inquiry into the fraud and corruption that exist within this organisation. 2975217:59:0029752Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I rise today to draw the House's attention to the plight of the rice industry in my electorate of the Riverina. Last Thursday I attended the rice growers conference in Leeton. It is a fantastic industry which I want to portray to this House. Ricegrowers Cooperative Ltd is one of Australia's most successful vertically integrated agribusinesses, producing and marketing great products under outstanding brands. With annual export sales of over $500 million, Ricegrowers Cooperative is Australia's largest exporter of branded food products and, with its Sunrice brand, it is well positioned to achieve its vision to be the world's favourite rice food company. Ricegrowers Cooperative has experienced a decade of aggressive growth and value creation. Wholly owned by Australia's rice farmers, it exports 85 per cent of production, representing four per cent of world trade and 39 per cent in japonica varieties, with branded consumer packs making up to 70 per cent of its exports. Australian rice is marketed to 72 countries in the Pacific, Asia, the Middle East and Europe. It is truly a global product—one that absolutely embraces globalisation. The Australian rice industry is internationally competitive and operates without any production or export subsidies, unlike most of its major competitors. Ricegrowers Cooperative creates jobs in metropolitan and regional areas and helps secure the viability of significant regional communities. In fact, it generates a quarter of the employment opportunities in the Murray-Riverina region and has over $2.5 billion invested in the industry in land, plant and equipment. Vesting is essential to capture and maintain the future opportunities for Ricegrowers Cooperative Ltd. Terry Hogan, the Chairman of Ricegrowers Cooperative Ltd, and Jerry Lawson, who will be the new chairman of Ricegrowers Cooperative Ltd, indicate that, to maintain and improve industry viability in the short term and to realise future opportunities, the rice industry must continue to have access to existing orderly marketing arrangements, underpinned by the vesting powers of the Rice Marketing Board. Vesting is the only marketing tool that they have to begin to counter the massive subsidies and protection that our global competitors enjoy. Australia's national competition policy must take into account the damage this causes to our export focused rice industry. In administering national competition policy, our politicians must authorise our continuing use of vesting until we can sell Australian rice into Japan and the European Union under the same conditions that apply to rice imported into Australia. Basically, what we have is a sensational industry that embraces globalisation and provides the electorate of the Riverina with substantial growth. Ricegrowers Cooperative proudly retains its stronghold on rice exported during the year, maintaining its position as the world's fourth largest rice organisation and Australia's largest exporter of processed and packaged food. It has continued to export in excess of 85 per cent of the production of short-, medium- and long-grain rice to 72 regular international customers. Ricegrowers Cooperative can proudly say that its product reaches into every continent on earth. The products continue to command a premium of competitors' products in many countries, as the customers continue to seek out premier quality and reliability of supply and service. The international marketing team on the ground in Singapore, Tokyo, Dubai, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Sydney have undoubtedly added to the attractiveness of the product in overseas markets. Ricegrowers Cooperative has significantly upgraded its manufacturing assets to increase operational capacity across the four mills at Leeton, Coleambally, Deniliquin and Echuca. The upgrades will enable higher milling production and will result in two new world-class packing facilities at the Leeton and Deniliquin mills in 2002. The operations group achieved good reductions in milling, packing and storage costs following the closure of the Griffith and Yenda mills in February 2000. Indeed, they have restructured their market in order to be far more efficient and competitive. The further efficiencies initiatives will achieve world-class performance and operational costs. Basically, in the Riverina, we have the finest rice growers in the world. Our Grower Services Communication Group enhances grower performance by providing information and services to the front line and by channelling feedback to the businesses that our activities align with the shareholders' expectations. It is also environmentally friendly. It reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The rice industry has joined the global fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the Ricegrowers Association of Australia is leading a scoping study into greenhouse emissions from rice paddy, rice processing, transport and waste management. Part of the National Greenhouse Challenge, this project aims to develop innovative greenhouse gas solutions and improve efficiencies and economics in rice production. We are already seeing positive opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas output through rotation cropping and other aspects of the rice farming system. There is no wasted water in rice growing. The average water consumption for rice growing in New South Wales and the Riverina has steadily decreased from an average of over two megalitres per tonne of paddy in 1985 to one megalitre per tonne of paddy in 2000. Finding innovative ways to continue reducing water consumption in rice growing remains one of the industry's highest environmental priorities. New technologies and smarter farming practices are leading the way.The global rice market is the most subsidised agricultural commodity in the world, with 82 per cent of OECD rice incomes being derived from direct government support. As I said, the Australian rice industry carries little support. Ricegrowers Cooperative Ltd has a four per cent share of the world trade and is a multimillion dollar global business. It is Australian owned and it is anchored in regional Australia, right in the heart of my electorate of the Riverina. Ricegrowers Cooperative Ltd deals in a world that is characterised by single buying desks, a lack of access and high subsidies. Ricegrowers Cooperative Ltd exports 85 per cent of its production. To restructure rice growers according to a domestic NCP framework will weaken and destroy the Australian industry's strength internationally. National Competition Policy tends to ignore world markets and is concerned only with domestic frameworks. It is of great concern to me that Australian agriculture is worth around $50 billion and $10 billion is consumed in Australia and $40 billion is consumed internationally. That the NCP process should focus on the $10 billion domestic front and ignore the $40 billion world market is perhaps significant in the scheme of things.I believe that at this point the NCP process is flawed, in that it has recognised the competitive strength of the rice industry but has not considered the undermining of the strength of a highly subsidised international rice trading environment. This rice industry does not want matching subsidies, just the ability to retain critical mass essential to being internationally competitive. The current New South Wales legislation for marketing arrangements will allow this. The process that we need to have put in place is this: until we can deliver trading arrangements allowing rice to be sold in Japan and the EU under the Australian import conditions and can act to have US subsidies reduced, I would like to see NCP put on hold. We should retain the New South Wales marketing legislation that rice growers currently operate under, and there should be no financial penalty applied.The issue that we face is the fact that COAG sit around the negotiating table with the Treasurer. One of those members of COAG is the Premier of New South Wales, the Hon. Bob Carr. It should be determined around the COAG table that the rice industry plight be taken up by the Labor Premier of New South Wales and that he should come into the party with respect to keeping this legislation and not caring about the ongoing process of NCP against the issues of whether or not the rice industry continues to prosper. This is a global company, a company that has represented globalisation, has embraced it and acts within a global world. All it needs is its essential strength—that is, its combined marketing and cooperative opportunities—to be able to retain the global impact that it currently has. 10000Quick, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted and I put the question:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills29754Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bill:Superannuation Contributions Taxes and Termination Payments Tax Legislation Amendment Bill 2001Bills29754S28829754Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Committees29754297542975410000Quick, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)— I have received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate agrees with the resolution of the House relating to an extension of time for the Joint Select Committee on the Intelligence Services to present its report.297542975418:10:0029754Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, on the Financial Services Reform Bill 2001, together with the evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBE—by leave—I am not proposing to make a statement in support of the tabling, because this particular item of legislation will be coming forward in this House and the other place very soon for debate, so it seems appropriate not to make a statement on this occasion.Bills29754R132129754Debate resumed from 9 August, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Lee moved by way of amendment—That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) misusing the issue of literacy for political advantage;(2) manipulating statistics about literacy achievement; and(3) providing $145 million to wealthy category one schools which could have been better used improving literacy for students in government and needy non-government schools”.18:11:0029754Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I rise today to speak on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001. During the last sitting, I happened to be in my office listening to the bill being debated in the House. It enraged me to a point where I felt that I wanted to have some input in the debate. The debate appeared to have very little substance with respect to what it is really all about for our children. I felt that there was no need, frankly, to oppose this bill because the debate that took place has distorted the real issues.In my discussions with the minister on this bill, I have learnt that the Commonwealth does not give any money to non-government schools unless the states have ticked off on their registration and have approved them for operation. Obviously, this money has been approved by the states for expenditure into these non-government schools. Basically much of this debate centred on the attitude of the Teachers Federation and that of the minister and on trying to gain points across the chamber. We neglected to concentrate on the thousands of wonderful teachers who are devoted to the future of our children, regardless of whether they are in government or non-government schools. Many of these issues are the same. I have made constant representations on the need to have a well resourced and equitable public school system as well as a non-government school system. Ideally, I believe that there is a need to establish a funding model which can be applied to all primary and secondary schools on an equal basis. This is, however, a very complicated issue, as the Commonwealth are not the main providers of government school funds. In fact, the ratio of responsibility is 88 per cent states to 12 per cent Commonwealth. The argument that sometimes the bills penalise government schools may be at a glance hard to sustain. In the four years since the coalition came into government, spending on government schools has risen from 0.65 per cent to 0.73 per cent of gross domestic product. Public school students are being funded by an estimated $7,000 per year, while a private school student is funded by around $3,700 per year.That is not the issue. I unequivocally support the people who strive for better policies on funding our valuable public schools. There are many of those people in this House, and many thousands of people out there among the public. I continue to fight to have the EBA looked at again. The minister has declared that he will return the EBA to the public school system and that provision will be made to some areas of need. New South Wales is one of the greatest beneficiaries of the EBA going back into the system.I would like to turn my attention to a document titled Our future. It is a report of a survey of Australian government primary school principals. I have met with John McMillan and many of the primary principals associations in the Riverina and many people who are absolutely passionate about education. An enormous amount of time and effort has been put into compiling what I think is a fantastic report that has implications for all forms of education. Each of the principals and each of the teachers—whether in government or non-government schools— would probably identify with many of the issues raised in this very good report. It identified that the changes in society and the pressures these placed on schools raised questions about the role of schools in society. There are parental expectations. As the document states:Parents' expectations of schools have increased. Most principals acknowledged the importance of meeting these demands but they also expressed frustration at their capacity to do so.That relates to resources. The document also identifies curriculum changes:The shift towards outcomes approaches to teaching and learning has resulted in a new orientation in the dynamic between teacher and learner. It is a radical change based on expectations that teachers can and will deliver more. Three aspects of these changes are discussed: the new national outcomes-based curriculum frameworks, the introduction of information communication technologies into schools and the emphasis on literacy.It also states:Teachers have been presented with new curriculum frameworks to inform them about what they are required to teach children. These new frameworks require teachers to account for their instructional programs in terms of students' learning outcomes. The frameworks also introduce an expectation that teachers acquire the competencies necessary for sophisticated education measurement.There is a sensible recognition in this document of the expectations of teachers, regardless of whether they are in non-government or government schools. In part of a conclusion on a chapter it says:Changes impacting on primary schools are coming from every direction. Schools are faced with a situation in which everyone wants more; governments, educators and parents have all raised their expectations of primary schools. ... Teachers need different kinds of classrooms because the methods of instruction have changed. The expectation that all children will become literate means that the failing students must have access to effective remedial strategies. Supporting students with learning difficulties has become part of the core business of primary schools. There is no longer a requirement that a child must fit into an available program. Instead, teachers are expected to adjust their programs to accommodate all children's learning needs. Community expectations of government primary schools are now very high. They are also very high in non-government, private schools. The fact is that these people have identified some very significant issues in this document and I cannot commend the report highly enough. On page 41, under the section headed `Actions', it states:What is at stake? Both sides of government at state and Commonwealth levels recognise the importance of education. Though the wording may differ, party platforms make it clear that funding education is an investment in the future; it is a crucial means of improving the quality of life and of positioning the nation in an increasingly global world. At a more pragmatic level, political parties recognise that education is important because polls show that education is a key issue in federal and state elections. There is a definite bipartisan attitude within this document. It recognises that, no matter who is in government in this House or who is in government in the state parliaments, education has a fundamental place and is foremost in our thoughts. The document goes on to point out:... Australia's ageing population combined with the rapidly escalating costs of health care will demand greater real expenditure and will thereby limit increases in education expenditures over the longer term.No matter who is in government, these are the realities of life. The report continues:Education must compete as a priority area with health and social security. There is recognition that, under these circumstances, governments will find it difficult to find the quantum of funds that were committed during the 1970s to address the resource needs of Australian schools at that time. There is a definite need to understand that things have changed in education since the 1970s and there is no going back. Our technology has taken us into the future. But have we left our teachers and our schools—some government and some non-government schools—behind in this?The document also suggests what actions might be taken. It states:1. Establishing resource standards2. A national review of resource needs3. Independent monitoring of school funding and 4. Regulation of competition. I think that is a genuinely bipartisan issue. Yes, there should be a review of the resource needs. Ours is an enormously changing world in regard to education and the impact of education. The document continues:The resource standards framed by the Schools Commission in 1984 now seem crude and disconnected from teaching and learning. The starting point for a new set of standards should be an analysis of how the curriculum for the twenty-first century is designed and how it should be delivered to achieve the outcomes...... ... ...The principals who participated in the survey—that is, the one that made up this book, Our future: report of a survey of Australian government primary school principals—concerned that their claims might be seen as ambit, suggested that high schools and independent schools be taken as reference points. This is a remarkable turnaround because, until recently, government schools have provided the benchmarks for school resource levels.The document admits that there are problems with comparisons. It states:Comparisons with independent schools are problematic. First, there is considerable variation within the sector. Second, the recent growth within this sector, and the funding that has enabled it, accounts for a relatively high proportion of new, purpose-built buildings. Third, the tendency to cater for students K-12 on one campus provides opportunities for secondary places to subsidise primary places. These and other differences between the sectors mean that it is not reasonable to directly compare dollar inputs.The document goes on to quote a national review of school resource needs. This was where there was the greatest recognition of the real issues that we face. It states:A comprehensive review of school resource needs would best be undertaken with the cooperation of state and Commonwealth authorities. Well, hallelujah. That is probably one of the most significant claims. It continues:If standards can be agreed upon, then it would be possible to find out how many Australian schools fall below the benchmark and where they are located.Then we can proceed to deliver education where it is most needed. The report continues:It would be appropriate to invite the private school sector to participate in the review. Again, I am quoting; this is coming out of this document of the survey of primary principals. It says: It would be appropriate to invite the private school sector to participate in the review. Although this survey was confined to government school principals, it is likely that principals from low-fee private schools serving low-income neighbourhoods would be operating in similarly demanding circumstances to their government school colleagues.I found that to be so refreshing, to find a typical understanding that it is not all stacked against or for those people who are delivering education. The document goes on to correctly point out:The claims and counter-claims about the adequacy of Commonwealth and state funding of government schooling are almost impossible for the layperson to assess. That is why we have so many differing thoughts out there as to the way in which education is delivered—who funds education, who does not fund education, who is right and who is wrong. The report continues:The facts are difficult to establish because schools are funded on complex bases. This makes it difficult to arrive at any conclusion as to whether the allocations to government schools are `fair'. The Hansard reports of the passage of the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 through the legislation committee and then the houses of parliament during August and September 2000 bear this out. I can only concur. The report correctly points out that the flow of debate that goes on within the House does nothing to resolve the real issues; perceptions are mainly perpetrated by political point scoring by all parties involved. The parliament does not get on with what is exactly happening out there on the ground. The document goes on to talk about regulation of competition, saying: The competition is eroding collaboration between schools and producing inequalities. Governments need to do something about it. At the very least there needs to be an agreed code of conduct in regard to competition among schools.That is sensible. It should be government school to government school, not only government school to non-government school, because some of the major competition is just between government school and government school. It does not really reflect what takes place in debate in this House. Also, the document goes on to say: Governments have promoted the setting of professional standards of teaching and benchmarks of student achievement. These standards place pressures on schools. Resource standards lapsed with the termination of the Schools Commission and have not been restored because they would place pressure on governments. Many of the survey respondents believe that such pressure would be in the public interest. Without specifically saying so, what primary principals would like to see is an educational equivalent of Allan Fels, the chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, a person who has the independent means to investigate allegations of unfair practice. That is allegations between government schools and government schools as well. It continues:... education is not only a crucially important social institution, it is also a huge industry. According to the Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision, the annual financial outlay for the Australian school education sector is over $25 billion. Governments quite properly have emphasised better measurement of outcomes in their accountability frameworks and huge amounts of energy and resources are going into the collection of data. However, there is a need for balance. Just as there should be a need for thorough monitoring of student learning outcomes, there also should be a monitoring of resource levels. There are various ways of providing non-partisan monitoring with a sufficient capacity to do the job well. Governments could set up—any government could set up—such a mechanism as happened with the formation of the Schools Commission, a statutory body reporting to parliament. ... ... ...The main criterion is that it is able to operate independently of government and special interest groups.The document concludes:The nature and extent of the problem identified by principals warrant the intervention of governments. This report calls for action that addresses the unhelpful division between Commonwealth and state responsibilities for school funding and which directs government funding to where it is needed most. The future of public education depends on it.I might add that I think the future of some private education also depends on all of those issues being addressed.I commend the people who have put together a very responsible analysis of the issues that confront primary schools across the nation. Another document was put out by the New South Wales Primary Principals Association called Future directions for New South Wales public primary schools. That document had some admirable areas—for example, there was no differentiation between whether it was government school or non-government school. It stated:The public education has a dual role in social justice provision: to equip the impoverished and disadvantaged with the skills and opportunities to give them genuine chances and choices in their lives, to provide an education for all that enables the egalitarian principles which have made Australian democracy unique to flourish in the future. It strongly advocated sufficient resources in order to deliver the essential educational provision for all students. It did not differentiate; it is for all students. It is for those students who are in low income independent schools and for those students who are in government schools. Ultimately, this Howard government is providing significant dollars, some $222 million, to support capital improvements in government schools. This compares with $87 million that will be provided to the non-government school sector. To date, the Commonwealth government has spent some $72 million on new and replacement schools. (Time expired)Sitting suspended from 6.31 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:0029758Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The previous speaker in the debate on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001, the member for Riverina, argued that there needed to be a real commitment to education and that education needs needed to be constantly reviewed. That is something that no-one could disagree with. She also put forward that there are competing needs between aged care, health and education, and therefore we need a different approach to education. What I think the member was saying is that that different approach to education should be provided by the private sector and not the government, which means cutting funds to government schools. I would like to remind the member for Riverina that, if the $20 million that the government is currently putting into its advertising campaign were directed towards education, there would be a lot more money to go around.The amendment bill has been promoted as legislation to improve school outcomes. It is legislation that the government claims will provide $36.9 million for the period between 2001-02 and 2003-04 for literacy and numeracy funding. The government estimates that the cost of this initiative will be zero dollars. In other words, the government is allocating no new money to these literacy and numeracy initiatives. Rather, it is taking money from existing programs and directing it into numeracy and literacy, thus leaving a shortfall in some other area. It is a cheap political exercise designed to trick Australians into believing that this government is committed to investing in and improving the literacy level of young Australians, when really its agenda is about shifting costs and not actually investing in young Australians' literacy and numeracy.In June 1996 the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs announced that improving the literacy skills of Australian students would be a key policy initiative of this government. If he were really serious about that, he and his government would not have directed millions and millions of extra dollars into category 1 private schools— schools like Cranbrook at Rose Bay, a school that obviously is quite well off, a school that has just paid $7 million to purchase the Rose Bay Bowling Club. That is harbourside land. A lot of the money that is going into the purchase of that land would have been much better directed into literacy and numeracy programs and into state schools, which obviously are not in the position that Cranbrook School is in when it can purchase a $7 million package of land. The national goal that the minister advocated was to ensure that every child leaving school would be able to read, write and spell at an appropriate level. My question to the minister is: what is an appropriate level? Is it an arbitrary level that the minister is going to share with us at some stage? Is it an individual level; is it going to be based on an individual person's ability to actually achieve? Some people really struggle with literacy and numeracy. There are many people who, no matter how hard they try, have never managed to master reading and writing. I would like the minister to explain to the House how he intends to decide on what the appropriate level is and whether it is the same for every student.This highlights one of the issues around any debate on literacy. One of the difficulties is that there is no single universal definition of literacy. Literacy covers a wide spectrum. At one end of the spectrum you have functional skills based on literacy and, at the other end of the spectrum, you have a more sophisticated form of literacy that is a multidimensional concept of literacy. This has been an ongoing debate amongst academics, and one for which I do not think the answer has ever been satisfactorily reached. Adult literacy within the community is, as we all know, such that about 10 per cent of all adult Australians cannot read at a level where they can actually manage to function in a society where literacy plays such an important part. This has been monitored for many years and every serious assessment or recognised test that has been administered always comes up with the same level. My point is that, no matter what definition of literacy you use or what it is, it is vague. This government uses the vague nature and the various definitions of literacy to manipulate the results. That can be seen, as I said, from previous literacy assessments. The initiatives to improve literacy that this government has introduced are, once again, directed towards a very esoteric, very obscure definition of literacy. The government's initiatives that we can measure have been directed towards testing and not towards solving students' literacy problems. New South Wales introduced the basic skills test in 1987. I must say that what followed from those literacy assessments has been a lot more promising and positive than what has happened at the federal level. We have had the Reading Recovery program introduced in a number of schools throughout the state of New South Wales, and there have been some excellent results achieved there by children who have previously struggled with literacy. It has allowed for the early identification of reading problems and for working in special programs. This government is doing a smoke and mirrors trick of saying it is putting money in and supporting testing; but it has no new initiatives. The minister grandstands. He talks about a literacy crisis throughout Australia. He directs a lot of his criticisms towards New South Wales. But, as I have already demonstrated, in New South Wales the basic skills testing that started in 1987 has actually led to some positive programs that have provided good, sustainable programs for young students to improve their reading.Since 1975 there has been a plethora of policy initiatives, and I would like to go through these initiatives. But, before doing that, I would like to make the point that many of these initiatives seem to have been an exercise in reinventing the wheel. Just as the government has transferred money from one program to another and has invested no new money in literacy and numeracy, now it is reinventing programs that have been there, shifting from one program to another, with constant assessments and constant reviews, without moving our outcomes forward. Furthermore, it is important to note that the single most important determinant of literacy is a person's socioeconomic background. In other words, somebody who comes from a disadvantaged background, somebody whose parents had poor literacy skills, tends also to end up having poor literacy skills. Those people then have a poor employment outlook and a greater chance of ending up in jail— and I think that this government has failed to look at that for even a moment. A problem exists at the moment with people from disadvantaged backgrounds being breached by Centrelink, which places the children in those families at an even greater disadvantage. While we have people from disadvantaged backgrounds struggling to survive, with the growing gap between those who have and those who have not within our society, the problem of literacy will not be satisfactorily addressed. We can address it at one level within the schools and we can test kids time and time again, but no real change will be made until we make an impact on those children's lives and place them in the same situation of advantage that other children, perhaps their friends at school, are in.As I have mentioned, this government has moved to increase the divide between those people who have plenty of money and plenty of resources—and one of those resources is education—and those people who struggle to survive, to access education and to get the equipment and staff they need to enable them to succeed within the education system. One of this government's early moves was to remove programs like the Students at Risk Program, the STAR Program. That program operated really successfully. Another program, the JASPER program, operated within the electorate of Shortland. It worked with young people from disadvantaged backgrounds—children who were truanting, children with very poor literacy skills. Some of those students who were truanting had perhaps attended school only once or twice a year. This program brought them back into the classroom but in an environment that was away from the school, and it was exceptionally successful. In that program we had students completing year 10 who were having difficulty in reading at all. Also, it had some very good employment outcomes and was showcased on a number of programs throughout Australia. This government's answer was to withdraw the funding for that program. Thankfully, the New South Wales government came to the party and supplied some funding to ensure that that program continued. That program thrives today. It is offering a number of children who are educationally disadvantaged, children with poor literacy and numeracy skills, the opportunity to actually succeed.If the government were truly concerned about literacy and numeracy skills, it would be investing more money in programs like the JASPER program that operates out at the Lake Macquarie Police Citizens Club. It is a program that has directly improved the literacy and numeracy of some of the most disadvantaged and difficult students in the community. Instead of putting money into programs like the JASPER program, this government's answer to literacy and numeracy has been to give money to category 1 private schools, like the King's School in Sydney and Cranbrook School, which has just spent $7 million purchasing land in Rose Bay. The children from disadvantaged backgrounds continue to go without, while this government constantly reviews its priorities. I would remind honourable members that the member for Riverina pointed to the need for people to pay for education and to perhaps move some of the funding away from those needier areas. I will refer to the chronology of some selected research and Commonwealth initiatives that were supplied to me by the Parliamentary Library. This really goes to demonstrate how, since 1975, there have been a number of reviews, a number of select committees all looking at literacy and numeracy and all coming up with very similar answers, and yet we still go on and on doing the same things. There was the Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties in 1977, and I suppose this is the starting point. That committee found that there was an absence of reliable national data. That then prompted a survey of literacy and numeracy levels of schoolchildren in Australia. The Australian Council for Educational Research, ACER, assessed the achievements of year 10 and 14-year-olds in the areas of reading, writing and numeracy. It reported that there was a wide range of performance and confirmed that a significant number of children were failing to reach adequate levels of numeracy. In 1979, there was a recommendation for the development of assessment methods and performance standards for basic skills. Employers were concerned about the literacy and numeracy skills of school leavers. In 1980, there was a report on the national assessment program for Australia. That came out of a 1976 study group. It recommended that individual schools be the primary agents to conduct skills assessments. In 1980, increased support for literacy monitoring was recommended. It was more of the same— assessment and monitoring. In 1981, there was a report on literacy and numeracy of students aged 10 to 14. In 1984, a Senate committee recommended additional funding for adult literacy programs. The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001 does not even give additional funding to primary schools.In 1985, the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aboriginal Education stated that there should be some support for bilingual education programs for Aboriginal children. In 1989, the first national survey of adult literacy found that the majority of adults could perform straightforward literacy tasks, but many were unable to complete more complex tasks. This relates to the kind of assessment you have for literacy and what you use to determine whether a person has adequate literacy skills.In 1989, common and agreed goals for schooling in Australia were reached. That involved the development of English literacy and numeracy skills. The year 1990 was the International Year of Literacy, which concentrated on strategic national projects that could form the basis for future literacy programs. All the time we were talking about the future and about assessing, but what happened? There was to be a concentration on strategic national projects and that was gradually working its way to the point. In 1990, a strategy was put in place for promoting literacy and language learning. In 1991, workplace and job seeker literacy programs were established. At that point, some programs had been put in place. In 1991, there was a report on the literacy needs in the workplace, once again, with the aim of putting programs in place. We were really at a stage where we were moving forward. The Australian literacy and numeracy policy was established under a Labor government and a very strong program was put in place in 1992.I will move forward now to 1996 when the present minister took responsibility. All of a sudden, he revisited all the good forward moves and outcomes that had been achieved and said, `We need another survey.' He commissioned the National Language and Literacy Institute of Australia to prepare a literacy policy. We had more task forces and further assessments. We are now at the stage where he has been comparing literacy and numeracy levels between 1975 and 1995. He has been reworking the figures to get the outcome he wants. We now face this legislation in which the minister is saying, `We're going to give more money to numeracy and literacy,' but in reality that `more money' simply means moving it from one program to another.The opposition's approach is quite different from the government's approach. We know the importance of education. That is why we are setting up education priority zones and putting real money into schools to address the problems of literacy and numeracy. We understand the importance of literacy and numeracy, and the need for students to be able to read, write and have good mathematical skills. Without that, they are behind. We know that knowledge and education are Australia's future, and that is what we on this side of the House want to ensure.20:20:0029761Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—In rising to speak on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001, I point out that you would find it hard to come across someone in our society who says that they are against education. You would find it hard to come across someone who would say, `No, I'm not going to support education. I don't think that's a good idea. It's not something I'm going to get behind or support as a philosophy or an idea within a political party.' You will not find anyone who says that because of course everyone in our community is concerned about education. The real test in this debate is what you are prepared to give up when you say that you are in favour of education. It is when you actually say, `I'm prepared not to have this in order to provide education.' In the Labor Party, we take education seriously enough to say frankly and openly to people that, if it comes down to tax cuts versus spending on education and health, we are prepared to be the one political party in this country which has the courage to stand up and say what everyone knows should be said, and that is that we need to do more when it comes to education. Education is not a small thing in the lives of working people; it is everything. It is the way out of the circumstances which many of our families find themselves in, and it is the way to break out of that cycle of poverty that entraps so many working people in this country. On this side of the House, we understand that. However, a lot of the people on the other side of the House have never properly grasped just how important education is to ordinary working people.We should not be surprised about that, because we understand the make-up of the Liberal and National parties. It came as no surprise on this side of the House when it was revealed that about 85 per cent of people on the front bench of the Howard government had gone to category 1 schools—elite schools. Those schools do not have small attendance fees. They are not like the parish school that I attended in the Latrobe Valley. They are not run by the Marist Brothers or the Christian Brothers in some of the tougher regional districts of this country. Those elite schools are all run by organisations that charge parents substantial fees to send their children to them. That is how representative the Liberal and National parties are. They come into this place time and again and talk about ordinary Australians and about how they represent that great group of Australians with whom they say they can empathise. In truth, they are completely unrepresentative of the people who make up middle Australia, and that is demonstrated by the fact that they have so many people from those elite, rich schools on the government front bench. The situation was very different when the front bench of the Labor Party was examined. Two-thirds had gone to public schools, about 25 per cent had gone to parish schools like mine, and a couple had gone to grammar schools. That is a reflective make-up of the Australian community, and that is why we on this side of the House have a better understanding of what education means to working people.When you consider the circumstances in which we in the electoral district of McMillan find ourselves, you can understand why we take education so seriously. If it had not been for the wonderful educational institutions that we have in the Latrobe Valley in particular, but in West Gippsland and Pakenham as well, we would have found ourselves in awful circumstances—far worse even than the very high unemployment and difficult social circumstances associated with many parts of my electorate. Our schools have stood between us and complete desperation. When people in our community needed them to lift, to do more and to take on more responsibility for giving people a hand up and for giving people a hand out of the difficult circumstances that they and their families were in, all our schools in the electoral district of McMillan lifted and did more to support our community. We have a saying that I am sure is not unique to the Latrobe Valley, and that is that education is the tool of empowerment; it is the way to change the circumstances that you or your family are in.As young people in the Latrobe Valley, we were inspired to believe that we could do anything. We were inspired to believe that what would set us apart were how smart we were and how hard we worked, not how rich we were or how rich mum and dad were. That is the basic principle that we in the Labor Party believe in. We believe in a meritocratic system. We believe that people who can succeed in education should be encouraged to succeed and that it should not be based on how rich their mum and dad are or whether mum and dad drive a Mercedes, a Rolls Royce or a BMW. We do not believe that that should be the criterion for whether you go to university or get into a certain course. We believe that it should be based on how hard you are prepared to work and how good your results are. That is the heart and soul of Labor's approach to education. We understand how important it is to working people, and that is why we are prepared to stand up and be counted and say, `When it comes to a choice between tax cuts for high income earners and providing education to all Australians, we are going to go for providing education to all Australians. We are going to resist the cheap political opportunism in trying to offer tax cuts to high income earners.' That is not our way; that is not what we are about. In the educational infrastructure in McMillan we have some wonderful schools in the government and non-government sectors doing a lot of good things. We also have a fantastic university, Monash University Gippsland, which is based at Churchill in the Latrobe Valley. We also have perhaps the best group training company in Australia in Gippsland Group Training, along with the Central Gippsland Institute of TAFE, which has gone from strength to strength in the last seven or eight years. We are fortunate to have those educational institutions. But, as traditional industries associated with the Latrobe Valley have gone through radical changes over the past 10 years, so too our educational institutions need to go through those changes and make the change from the old economy to the new economy. We want our schools, our TAFE, our university and our Gippsland Group Training company to be associated with those new industries, to be part of the new economy and the sector of the economy that is growing and generating the new high-skill, high-wage jobs that people in future will see as their way to greater prosperity and greater opportunity. We do not want to become a backwater in the Latrobe Valley.We do not want to be left behind when places like Melbourne and Sydney are taking advantage of the new economy and the jobs associated with that fast-growing sector. For places like the Latrobe Valley not to be left behind, you need a government that cares and says, `We're not prepared to let places like the Latrobe Valley get further behind. We're not prepared to let those people be subjected to higher levels of unemployment and low levels of year 12 retention. We want you to share in this world prosperity. We want you to share in the new economy, the high wages and the high-skill jobs associated with that growing part of the economy.' That is why we in the Labor Party have adopted the idea of education priority zones.For someone who represents an area which is acknowledged as being one of the most disadvantaged areas in the country, I understand that we need to make sure that we do something in a very direct and deliberate way to change the circumstances that we are in. You will not get the improvement in year 12 retention rates and you will not get the improvement in year 12 marks by tinkering around at the edges. You will not get the substantial improvement that we need to see in terms of those two indicators by getting the national settings right. What you need to do is to be prepared to intervene: to change those circumstances, to acknowledge that the way it is right now is not right and to do something about it. The education priority zones idea is Labor's way of doing just that. It will mean more resources in these regions. It will mean more support for teachers and more support and encouragement for education professionals, and it will mean working with local educational institutions like the TAFE, the university and the Gippsland Group Training and with other local professional people and industry to come up with a partnership approach to improve year 12 retention rates and also to improve the marks that our students get in their VCEs. From the point of view of the families in my electorate who are looking to Labor to change the circumstances that the Latrobe Valley is in, this is exactly the type of approach they want. People know that this is the only way to change the circumstances that we are in.Every time something closes in the Latrobe Valley or the federal government close services in our district, they always tell us how much money they have spent on a program nationally. They tried to close the Good Beginnings program, which was a great program put in place to support families in the Latrobe Valley. We said, `You cannot do that because we need it here. We need this support for our families. It costs hardly anything, but we need you to do this.' Back came the government media release, which said, `We are spending X number of millions of dollars every year on children's services nationally.' Our response to that is, `What about us in the Latrobe Valley?' All we want is for people to focus more just for a little while on the circumstances that we find ourselves in. If people brought to bear on these problems the will and determination that the national government is able to, the circumstances that we find ourselves in would improve and change, and we would start to see some of that change take place in our community. Marks would improve and year 12 retention rates would improve. People would feel better about the education which they are getting and would see that there is opportunity to be had. The education priority zones idea is our way to make sure that more federal government resources come to places like the Latrobe Valley and to make sure that we get the most help, because right now we need the most help because we need to make the most improvement. Similarly, we know, and families in my electorate know, that it is no good just having a good primary and secondary school system. It is not enough any more. With the focus now being more and more on tertiary qualifications, we need to make sure that our region shares in that prosperity. We are fortunate to have a first-class institution in the Monash University Gippsland. It is a first-class institution and probably one of the best regional campuses in the country.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—Is it as good as Burnie?84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—My colleague and friend the member for Braddon asked me if it is as good as Burnie. I would not want to compare it with the university in his electorate, because I know he will get very parochial on me, but it would be widely accepted that our university would be one of the very best regional campuses of a major university in the country. We are, of course, very proud of that, and we are very fortunate as well to have a great leader at the university in Gippsland in Professor Brian Mackenzie, who has done a fantastic job in heading that university in the direction of more support for the Gippsland campus, a greater range of courses and of an increased number of student places. He has done a fantastic job for us.We want to see an expansion of our university. We want to see a broader range of courses. We want to see more people come to Gippsland for their higher education, so that we do not see the Latrobe Valley and greater Gippsland becoming an area where there are skills shortages, but rather as a place which produces skilled people. Increasingly, industries are becoming more and more footloose. The thing that defines where they are is increasingly the transport and communications infrastructure in those regions and the skills of the people who live there. That presents for us in Gippsland, with our beautiful landscape, our great natural resources and our wonderful infrastructure, an opportunity to become a real knowledge centre not just in regional Victoria but in regional Australia.We need the combined resources and will of the federal government to help us do that. In Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, we have a man who has embraced a vision of making sure that regional Australia is not left behind and of making sure that our country is not left behind on a global scale. The idea and concept of the Knowledge Nation is something which we will benefit from in Gippsland, and all parts of regional Victoria and regional Australia will benefit from it as well.We do not want to be left behind. We have been left behind so often by actions and initiatives taken by the federal government, and the people of Gippsland, regional Australia, and regional Victoria more specifically, will have a real clear choice when it comes to the federal election. They will have the choice of short-term political opportunism and promises made but never honoured in terms of tax cuts for wealthy people, or the alternative of embracing a vision which will make sure that all people in this country—irrespective of how wealthy they are, how wealthy their parents are or whether they live in Traralgon or in South Yarra—will have access to educational opportunity.It is my view, and I am sure that this view is shared by all of my colleagues, that the people of Australia will decide that they need to get behind the idea of making Australia a knowledge nation, the idea of Australia asserting itself as a country which can find its own way in the world and a vision of a national government that cares enough about regional Australia to make sure that places do not get left behind by ensuring that educational priority zones are put in place to bring those regions up to speed with the rest of our country. It is a clear choice, and probably one of the clearest choices which voters will have to make when we go to the polls in just a few months time. We have heard a lot of talk about private schools and a lot of talk about category 1 schools. I quite enjoy talking about category 1 schools, and when it comes to taking money away from category 1 schools I am quite happy to talk about that as well. I think is a good thing that we take the extra money that Dr David Kemp has given to these schools away from these institutions, because they are not hard up for a quid—they are not short on dough, these people. They have got plenty of money, and the people who send their children to those schools have got plenty of money as well.In my electoral district we do not have a single category 1 school, so the people of my electorate, I have to say, are pretty happy about the idea of taking money away from Scots College; they are pretty happy about the idea of taking money away from those poor people who send their children to Geelong Grammar. I know there are a lot of battlers who send their kids there and pay the $15,000 or $20,000 a year. To the Howard government, these people are battlers. I say to them that the people in the Latrobe Valley who send their kids to Traralgon Secondary College or the Catholic regional college are the real battlers. They are the people who should get the support that taxpayers can provide to educational institutions.So we are going to take the $105 million over three years away from these rich, elite category 1 schools and we are going to put it into things that people want to see: teacher development partnerships and teacher excellence scholarships. We are going to put some of that money into public schools to make sure that they do not get left behind in terms of capital works. We will make a difference to the schools where most people send their children, rather than just putting more public money into these already very rich institutions.The choice is very clear: putting money into education and supporting those schools and institutions where a vast majority of parents send their children or giving more money to elite, category 1 schools. (Time expired)20:40:0029765Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—It is always a great pleasure to follow my friend and colleague the member for McMillan, and I know our shadow minister at the table, my colleague the member for Denison, would concur with this. I went to school with him for one of our senior secondary years. There is not one category 1 school in Tasmania either, member for McMillan, so we share that with the Latrobe Valley.I have a great deal of pleasure speaking on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 which provides additional funding for literacy and numeracy programs for the years 2001-02 to 2002-03. I think it is very important that in such a debate we recognise first and foremost the importance of literacy and numeracy in our community. I do not think anybody in this House would disagree that literacy and numeracy are absolutely fundamental to both the present and future prospects of our young people in our schools, whether they be private or public schools.Indeed, I think there is absolute evidence of the links between literacy skills, socioeconomic disadvantage and future life outcomes, and notably the links between literacy levels and employment outcomes. I note with a little sadness that during this debate, if that is what we could call it, very few people actually concentrated on the issues of literacy and numeracy. We have had some preposterous proposals in relation to this topic: for instance, that the Australian Education Union was `anti literacy and numeracy'. There is a lot of garbage spoken in this House at times, but that was absolutely outrageous. There were also claims, for instance, that interest in this topic of literacy and numeracy was almost invented by the current minister. We on this side know, and people who have been involved in education for some time know, that the issues of literacy and numeracy have always been around in education and that people have taken them very seriously. If people expect to compare literacy testing and numeracy testing from one year to another, there is a great deal of debate about the results. The one thing that is clear, however, is that literacy and numeracy are very important and they should be resourced accordingly and should be a primary task of our education system, no matter where our children go to school.What I would like to comment on is particularly related to literacy and numeracy in my home state of Tasmania, which proudly has an excellent educational record—but there is still more to be done and more resources to be used strategically, efficiently and effectively to make the future much brighter for our students. As I mentioned at the beginning, literacy and numeracy are absolutely fundamental to the futures of our young people.I would also like to concentrate on the issue of boys and literacy, which is an aspect that probably has not been touched upon in this debate to date and is an issue that I have raised on several occasions in this House and in my submission to the current inquiry into the education of boys. Again, I would recommend that members look to the web site to look at these submissions. There are some excellent submissions there, and of course most of them are not just related to the issues of socioeconomic background and boys in education but particularly to literacy and numeracy and some of the trends there.The Tasmanian Education Department's 2000-02 National Literacy and Numeracy Plan shows, in a distribution of reading scores by sex for year 3, that as early as kindergarten years there is a difference between the performance of boys and girls. The department's kindergarten database showed that, proportionally, performances of more boys than girls were identified as being of concern in 1997. Large differences in performance of boys and girls were noted in listening, speaking and understanding skills. I am absolutely confident that that type of summation is applicable to just about every state in Australia at present.The Tasmanian Education Department has introduced several ongoing initiatives to address this problem. I had the pleasure some time ago of attending the Learning Together Awards for Educational Excellence in the Arthur district of my electorate—along with the Barrington district, which is the second educational district in Braddon—during Tasmanian Education Week. I would like to recognise the following district award nominations: the Forest Primary School literacy team; the Redpa Primary literacy programs; Lyn Donaghue of Burnie Primary School for literacy and numeracy programs; Veronica Hollister of Montello Primary School for literacy/ICT programs, which is another form of literacy that has interesting implications for boys and girls throughout Australia; and Roxanne Saunders of the Montello Primary School for the Montello intensive literacy program—to name but a few.Literacy and numeracy are very important priorities in the Tasmanian education system. One of the most successful programs is the Flying Start program, which focuses on school experiences in literacy, numeracy and social skills for all kindergarten, preparatory, year 1 and year 2 children and encompasses prior-to-school experiences, transition to school and children's development from ages four to eight. The Flying Start program was built on the outstanding achievements of the Early Literacy Support program. The Flying Start program provides a continuum of learning, has a cross-curricular focus and is inclusive of all students—those who have not made significant progress as well as those capable of higher achievement. All of these will benefit from the Flying Start program.Count Me In Too is an important program. It is a numeracy focused program for the early childhood area and was trialled in 21 Tasmanian primary schools in a similar manner to Flying Start. This program provides an additional 0.5 full-time equivalent numeracy officer in each district and intensive professional development for early childhood teachers in numeracy. I would particularly like to note the work of Lyn Donaghue and the Burnie Primary School, which has taken up this program with a great deal of zest. The Program of Additional Structure and Support, operating within the Flying Start program, has also made significant improvements to the literary outcomes for students in the upper primary sector. I would particularly like to note the Montello intensive literacy program. One of the aspects of that program is the Reading 25 club for home reading. The Reading 25 club points to one area that is often forgotten, particularly with boys and literacy, and that is the absolutely important role played at home and the importance of encouragement and support for parents—all parents, particularly dads, male carers and male partners—in emphasising and reinforcing particular modelling in literacy. This is an area that I would like to return to later.The Reading 25 club is a highly successful home school reading program which involves parents making a commitment to read with their children on a regular basis. The home reading program aims to have children reading familiar easier books for the purpose of encouraging confidence, fluency and increased understanding. It is used to consolidate practice and enhance the current reading skills of each child. It has proved to be a very important program in the Montello intensive literacy learning program. The Reading Recovery program is a very special early intervention program that provides a second opportunity for children who, in grade 1, have not yet established effective reading and writing processes. It is important that these literacy programs are ongoing. It is no good stopping in grades 3 and 5. Now we have them going to grades 6 and 7. I think the evidence is quite clear that there is an ongoing issue in terms of literacy, particularly with boys. That is an issue I would like to return to a little later.The Spalding method has been trialled in a number of Tasmanian schools and has led to interesting debate in Tasmania about its merits. It was highlighted recently in the media when the federal inquiry into the education of boys went to Tasmania, and the Spalding method was taken up with zest by some members of the committee. It provides a focused intervention program for literacy development. Some of the schools that were part of the trial have since incorporated the findings into further programs to provide additional support to students. The great thing about the Tasmanian education system is that, although you have an overall state approach within national outlines and guidelines, a great deal of flexibility is offered. Each of our schools is different, and that is the way we should encourage approaches to literacy and numeracy.Turning to the literacy question and boys in particular, if I can be as sexist and as specific as that, what is happening? I think it is well worth looking at this at a national level. In effect a greater percentage of boys than girls are late starters in literacy but, once they start, the greater majority of boys progress well at least until year 7. There is some evidence from Western Australia, awaiting further research, that boys have in fact caught up with girls in reading and writing by year 7, the final year of primary school in that state—it varies from state to state. Something happens in the junior secondary school years that prevents boys from keeping up with girls past year 7, so that the average boy is behind the average girl in literacy skills by the end of compulsory schooling.Important areas for further research and professional development are, of course, the junior and middle years of schooling. An area that I touch on in some depth in my submission to the inquiry into the education of boys, and many others have, is the whole question of middle schooling and how we structure that, and the curriculum that is evident there. The school culture of these years is important in shaping boys' attitudes to, and performance in, English and literacy. In addressing boys' performance in literacy, schools also need to work against the perception that English, and reading in particular, is predominantly a feminine activity. The cultural construction of English as a feminine subject can be alienating for boys and at odds with their adolescent and developing sense of masculine identity. Study after study suggests that. There is also considerable evidence that to be good at English can make a male student a target for homophobic bullying by macho males at school. There is considerable evidence to support that conclusion. As a point of interest, particularly in information and communications technology— which is regarded in the modern educational parlance as a crucial form of literacy—literacy is not simply being able to read and write in the print media. Young people today are required to be multiliterate, to be competent in the manipulation of a range of media. The capacity to use information and communication technologies is a form of literacy in itself: it requires learning signs, signals and systems that are often arbitrary and at levels of increasing sophistication according to the users for whom it is deployed. This is the crucial literacy for the 21st century, and don't we know it as we come to terms with this ICT literacy. It is interesting to note— and I am indebted to the Deakin University submission to the inquiry into the education of boys for this information—that there is considerable evidence that boys are fascinated by this form of literacy. They are certainly enrolling in ICT subjects in the senior school in greater numbers each year. However, I understand that the number of girls, having embraced this form of literacy alongside boys in the early 1990s, is now dwindling in this field. They are enrolling in much smaller numbers than boys. More girls than boys are in trouble in relation to ICT literacy, and that is an area that is worth observing; it is something that we have to tackle as well.So why don't boys read? Are they too busy playing sport? They are busy playing sport—the stereotype suggests that. But it is a fact, of course, that sport and reading are not mutually exclusive. So that is probably more myth than reality. I think there is an expectation that boys will not and do not read rather than a fact. Are boys too busy? Boys are busy, but bees are busy and others are busy. But reading is not seen as an activity; it is not seen as being busy. So it is not common to have down times now where boys are just sitting. TV and videos compete for reading time—that is, down time if you have any. You have instant access to the TV; you have instant gratification if needs be rather than picking up a book. This steals the down time. So idleness, which was the work of the devil in the past, is now the TV. The TV is a child pacifier. If TV is no good you go outside and play. How often do you say, `If you don't like it, read a book'? I tried that with my son the other day. In fact I got some books down, some do-it-yourself books, and there was that constant stare that said he would do anything but read. So what example have I demonstrated? I thought I was somebody who did demonstrate the importance of reading, that it is masculine to read and that it is part and parcel of doing what you do. So I have a bit of work to do.In 1994 there was a survey of groups of school age children in England. I do not want to be disrespectful but I think that evidence could be transferred to Australia. The statistics for some preferred activities were: watching your favourite TV program—24 per cent for boys and 35 per cent for girls; playing a new computer game—49 per cent for boys and 20 per cent for girls. But the figures for reading a really good book as a preferred activity were 17 per cent for boys and 43 per cent for girls. I do not think the figures would be much different now.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr Zahra—You're spot on, Sid.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—Yes, spot on. Aren't there enough books for boys? I went for a look. I found an excellent book entitled Boys and books, by James Moloney. I went through this book and there is page after page of categorised books for boys of different ages, different interests and so forth. There are plenty of books for boys and this book is a very interesting read. Are there neurological differences between the sexes that are responsible for poor literacy skills? Is it testosterone? Is that what is causing the problem? Or is it that real men don't read? Is that the problem? No. Boys learn how to act, and that is a socialisation process.I am quickly running out of time, but the point I would like to make—and I should have made it a lot earlier—is about how we define and view masculinity in our schools and in our homes. We need to think about the examples and the role models that we set in terms of what it means to be masculine. If our stereotypical view of masculinity is sporting prowess, a homophobic view of power, or an anti-feminine view, then there is something drastically wrong with the way we socialise our young men and our young women. This is something that needs to occur fundamentally at home, and I think it is very important that the resources of our community look to that. Instead of advertisements about the gap in Medicare and so forth, we should have ads about the importance of reading at home and about how literacy and numeracy affect us all—female and male. There are no gender differences; it is a question of how we socialise and model what we regard as very important. 21:00:0029769Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I rise tonight to speak to the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001. I was very interested to hear the comments of the member for Braddon about literacy—particularly boys' literacy. One of the comments that he made when he was going through the list of potential reasons why boys do not read is that perhaps some boys think there are not books out there for them. He would know as well as I do that there are some excellent books for children—both boys and girls. It gives me a lot of pleasure to see the books that my niece and nephew are reading, because I think that there has been a continual improvement in the fiction that is available to young people today. There are really some terrific things out there, and there are a lot of Australian authors who are writing beautifully for Australian young people. I urge parents who have not investigated their local library to go there, because they are terrific repositories for parents, especially for those who cannot afford to buy books frequently for their children.Labor's amendment to this bill condemns the government for, firstly, misusing the issue of literacy for political advantage; secondly, for manipulating statistics about literacy achievement; and, thirdly, for providing to wealthy category 1 schools $145 million which could have been better used to improve literacy for students in government and needy non-government schools. Of course, Labor always welcomes additional funding for literacy and numeracy programs. The problem is that this money is not, by and large, additional money; it is rebadged money that was already being spent in this area. Labor is deeply concerned that this does not go far enough in dealing with the problems of literacy and numeracy in Australia, because most of the money is rebadged and is not well targeted. In the term of this government, we have seen a tendency to siphon off education funding to the wealthiest category 1 schools. Labor would genuinely target literacy and numeracy by directing funds to the schools and to the students that need the funding.I have been looking at the Australian Bureau of Statistics education and training figures for 1996—these are the most recent figures that I could find—and it is interesting to note that almost half of Australians aged between 15 and 74 had poor or very poor prose literacy skills. There is no indication that those figures have dramatically improved since then; in fact there is no indication that they have improved at all since then. According to the statistics, some 2.6 million people aged between 15 and 74 could expect to face considerable difficulties in using many printed materials that are encountered in everyday life. That could be something as simple as reading the label on a medicine bottle, using a bus timetable or filling in forms. The OECD's year 2000 analysis of adult literacy places Australia among 14 countries where 15 per cent of adults have only the most basic literacy skills. That is another measure of literacy, but it is a much more recent measure, and it says that 15 per cent of adults have only the most basic literacy skills. That report has found that 17 per cent of Australian adults have such poor literacy skills that they encounter all sorts of difficulties in their everyday lives—particularly, as the member for Braddon was saying, in the information age that we live in.The member for Braddon also spoke about the importance of the home environment in encouraging children to read, and he particularly spoke about the role of the father in encouraging boys to read. It put me in mind of a story about a friend of a friend of mine who is a very big, strong man. He works in a manual job now, but he has had a very difficult life. He spent some time in jail, and he is a pretty tough and forbidding looking fellow. Every day at lunchtime, he sits in the lunchroom with his fellow workers and brings out a children's book. He reads through the book, and if there are words he does not understand he sounds them out, and if he has real difficulty he asks one of his colleagues to help him. The reason he subjects himself to possible humiliation in front of his colleagues is that he goes home every night and reads those books to his children. He wants to be able to read fluently, to engage the children, and to show them that he thinks that literacy is important. He recognises that a lot of the difficulties of his life and the tribulations that he has faced have been because of the poor level of literacy he had when he left school. I think that this man is one of the bravest I have heard of, because he is prepared to admit the problems that he had and to take action to address those problems—action that leaves him vulnerable to all sorts of teasing and comment. It is a fantastic act of bravery and a fantastic commitment to his children to expose himself in that way and to keep ploughing on because he understands the importance of literacy. It is such a serious problem, as we have said, and yet the way that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, has come up with the literacy figures is profoundly disappointing. I think he may need some help with his own numeracy. He has consistently used different ways of calculating literacy standards which enable him to say that literacy was at a crisis when Labor left office and literacy has been fixed under this government. It is such a dishonest approach to gathering statistics on literacy and it undermines the importance of the issue. It means that it is very difficult to treat seriously anything that this government says about literacy. When the minister says that there have been funding increases in this area, the minister again encourages us not to take him seriously. In February this year, the minister announced the launch of the Commonwealth government's $1.4 billion Strategic Assistance for Improving Student Outcomes program, specifically focused on boosting numeracy and literacy rates amongst schoolchildren. But soon after, the First Assistant Secretary of the Schools Division in the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Tony Greer, said to a Senate inquiry that only $131 million of this money was new. Senator Kim Carr asked if the remaining money was basically rebadged money from the former Disadvantaged Schools Program, the English as a Second Language program and disabled students programs. Mr Greer responded, `Yes, that is certainly the origin of those funds historically.' Of course, we welcome increases in funding, but the increases have to be real increases. There is no use calling an existing program by a different name and saying it is an increase in funding for literacy.The minister claims to have revolutionised literacy assessment. There is no revolution in literacy assessment under this government. The only advance—if you could call it that—is the development of a statistical formula for comparing state literacy and numeracy tests. As I said earlier, the minister has not at all improved literacy results. The 1999 year 3 reading national benchmark tests were promoted as a major improvement on the 1996 national school English survey. You can prove a lot of things with statistics, particularly if you do not use the same measures. If you compare apples with oranges, it is very easy to talk about the improvement in the quality of the oranges. Whether there is any improvement in literacy is questionable, given that the minister used one survey to claim year 3 illiteracy was 27 per cent and then used a completely different statistical survey in 2000 to claim that he had reduced it to 14 per cent. In fact, the same set of figures from the first lot of testing was used to provide two completely different figures on illiteracy in Australia. If you take the same raw data and you come up with two dramatically different sets of figures on illiteracy, it means that someone is fiddling the numbers somewhere.Instead of fiddling the numbers, the Labor Party plans to target literacy and numeracy through education priority zones, teacher excellence scholarships, teacher development partnerships and capital investment in schools. We have a commitment to the four targeted areas in the National Literacy and Numeracy Plan, as agreed by the Commonwealth, state and territory ministers for education, to support the national goal `that all students should have attained the skills of numeracy and English literacy such that every student should be numerate, able to read, write, spell and communicate at an appropriate level.' The plan includes a comprehensive approach to tackling our nation's literacy problems, including early assessment of all students at risk; early intervention to assist those students at risk; national reporting of student achievement against the national benchmarks; and teacher professional development to support the implementation of the National Literacy and Numeracy Plan. Labor believes that early assessment, early intervention, well resourced teachers and education priority zones are all central to assessing and genuinely improving literacy and numeracy. These areas are central to the policies that we have been putting forward in the lead-up to the election. Labor announced that it would be establishing a national network of education priority zones as part of a comprehensive strategy to improve education results in areas where there is social and economic disadvantage. The education priority zones program is designed to develop the best education practices and for students' needs to be assessed by the Commonwealth in partnership with schools and their local communities. That is the real key—local communities are often best placed to identify where students need extra help and extra resources. Local communities are also often best placed to identify what practical assistance can be given to those students, whether the key is mentoring, increased resources to literacy and numeracy or behavioural issues that have to be addressed. Each zone will be funded for four years and will closely monitor student performance. This announcement signals a substantially new role for the Commonwealth in relation to primary and secondary education. Until now the Commonwealth has played a secondary role in terms of providing a bit of funding to government schools, and this takes us to another level of involvement. Labor aims to improve literacy, increase year 12 completion rates and increase the number of people attending TAFE and university. We are also talking about employing specialist remedial literacy and numeracy teachers, providing additional professional development for teachers, introducing a community mentoring program for students, encouraging local businesses and local government to work with schools to motivate students and to provide them with pathways into employment after their schooling is completed, as well as strengthening the links between local schools, TAFEs and universities. As well as the education priority zones, Labor has a commitment to redirect the enormous amount of funding that has gone to the wealthiest category 1 schools under this government. By 2003-04, an extra $105 million would have gone to those 58 wealthiest schools. I am proud that, as a matter of priority, a Beazley government would redirect this money into special education programs, capital works, teachers and, most importantly, special programs for students who have particular needs. We are talking about capital expenditure of $100 million in partnership with the states. That is very important for the morale of people going to schools where the physical environments are starting to deteriorate.We are also talking about teacher development partnerships where the Labor government would prioritise best teaching practices by providing teacher development partnerships to 10,000 teachers over three years. The scheme would provide teachers with a semester of part-time training, which they would undertake in their own time, and on completion they would be eligible for a $2,000 grant. It would also inject substantial new resources into universities and other providers of this training. The teacher excellence scholarships that we have made a commitment to fund are 1,000 prestigious new scholarships each year to high-achieving graduates who enter teaching. The teacher excellence scholarships will pay the HECS debt for every year that the graduate remains in the teaching profession. That is in really stark contrast to the coalition's blueprint for education, included in a report called School innovation: pathway to the knowledge society. Of great concern in this report is that, while there were a number of common areas identified—quality teaching, effective data on what works, and so on—there seems to be an overwhelming emphasis on the need for schools to compete, for market forces to decide which schools are doing well. I think they call it `constructive pressure to promote innovation'. I do not see this as constructive pressure. I think that what schools need to be doing is cooperating with one another, with the TAFE and the university sectors, local businesses, local government, community groups and local ethnic communities, if they exist; communicating with those institutions and those individuals outside the school community that can really bring value to the school community. The idea of schools competing with one another, in particular competing as to which can provide the glossiest pamphlet to potential parents and can invest the most money in attracting new students, is of enormous concern to me.The minister continues to misrepresent Labor. He comes into this House and says that Labor oppose establishment grants for new schools. This is certainly not the case. Labor do not oppose establishment grants to new private schools, as long as there is a comparable amount being spent on public schools. The real disappointment is that he continues with the idea that Labor are opposing these grants when, in fact, that is not the case at all. We are saying that school funding must be fairly distributed and, when 70 per cent of children go to public schools, public schools are entitled to their fair share of government funding. Our approach is not to punish these schools but to recognise that government funds would be better spent on targeting the maintenance and improvement of needy schools rather than, in particular, on some of the wealthiest private schools, as this government has done. It is worth remembering that schools such as King's, which has 15 cricket fields, a 50-metre swimming pool, an indoor rifle range, an indoor rock-climbing wall, a gymnasium, 13 rugby fields, three soccer fields, a cross-country course and a boat shed, will receive an extra $4 million by the year 2004, while schools in my electorate can barely afford the most basic resources for some of their classrooms. I am not just talking about government schools. The minister keeps saying that government schools are the state governments responsibility. I am talking about some of the neediest non-government schools as well. I can think of two needy non-government schools that I have visited quite recently. Our Lady of Mount Carmel is in Waterloo and it has some of the most socially and economically disadvantaged students in my electorate. The school provides an excellent education to those children but it does it on the smell of an oily rag because it is in an area where it cannot charge parents all sorts of fees. It relies on what it gets get through the Catholic Education Office. The school really is providing an excellent education, with not much money, to some kids that really need it. Another example is East Sydney high school, a community school. Under the SES funding model that this government introduced, East Sydney school has had its status downgraded. This means that, although its funding is maintained for this funding cycle, in the future it will be considered a school that does not need much funding. East Sydney school—and I have spoken about the school before in this place—is a school that helps some of the most disadvantaged kids you will find anywhere. They are kids that are living on the streets; kids who are addicted to hard drugs; kids who are prostituting themselves to get the money to pay for those drugs. The school is run by the most dedicated team of professionals. Instead of giving extra support to schools such as East Sydney that really need it, the government gives extra funding to the wealthiest category 1 schools and nothing extra to schools such as this that are doing the most amazing job not only in teaching literacy, numeracy and basic skills but also in teaching these kids life skills. 21:20:0029773Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—As a parent and a former teacher, I am always keen to participate in a debate on education. As a product of a state system and as a teacher who taught in a state system, I made sure that my children went to state schools because I believed that, as it is the system of education for the majority of our students, it has the best to offer and offers the greatest choice. I firmly believe that the products of the state system are at least equal to those of any other system.I also grew up in a blue-collar community where education was the opportunity for people to break the shackles; education was the opportunity that people saw by which their children could be set free of working in the mine and free of working in the factory. It was the opportunity for children to really advance, free to explore the fullest range of choices of career. That is what education should be about. Unfortunately, under the Howard government that is certainly not what it is about.Question time today revealed a lot about the Howard government, and it was not good. In response to a question on public health, the Prime Minister jumped to his feet and boasted about his government's achievements in health and education. If the Prime Minister thinks he has done enough on education, I have got news for him, because the people of Australia do not believe him. They know that the once proud public education system is being starved of funds. They know that, in comparison with OECD countries, we are sliding down the scale, we are going backwards. We are a country that prides itself on innovation—we are some of the greatest users of innovation in the world—yet, because of the starvation of funds for education, we are going to be dependent on the innovation of others, not the innovation of our own children, our own progeny. Our investment in our future under the Howard government is falling. That is a tragedy, yet the Prime Minister and his minister for education do not see it.As I said, I was a teacher. I taught for 29 years, with 15 years as a head teacher of science. I am often amazed at the statements of this minister when he comes to the dispatch box. He is so ideologically driven. His hatred of teachers shows through—for example, in the way he continually denigrates Sharan Burrow, the President of the ACTU, a former teacher herself and a former president of the New South Wales Teachers Federation. I have always found teachers to be extremely diligent and professional. They are the sorts of people who are prepared to go the extra yard and really make the difference. They will spend time with difficult students. They will spend time with those students who need that extra bit of tuition just to make sure that, if they can get over that hurdle, if they can get that concept, they will proceed. I think of teachers taking school excursions. We often see them around this place, for example. They are carrying out a task, they are not being paid overtime, they are with those kids 24 hours a day—and you see some fairly big groups come through here. I venture to say that the minister and the Prime Minister might feel a little inadequate if they had to lead them around Parliament House, get them on a bus, take them to some of the well-known public buildings in this city or take them down to the snow fields and other places. But teachers do it. They do not complain. That is part of their job. The situation is the same with drama and music festivals and sporting teams. The Treasurer last week talked about volunteers, about how people in Australia should be prepared to volunteer to make sure that Australia is a better place. I would simply like to remind the minister for education that, next time he gets up and gets stuck into teachers, he might think of the time that they volunteer, because they certainly do their bit as far as the Australian community is concerned.Although I am fiercely supportive of the state system, I would also like to equate with the state system the parochial Catholic system. I have taught with teachers who have taught in both. I have worked alongside some of these schools in various productions, particularly in science competitions and that sort of thing, and I note the similarity of the two systems. Between the two, they educate about 95 per cent of our students, yet these are the systems that are being starved of funds by this government. Often I visit schools at the request of parents because their kids are sitting in demountable rooms or because the carpet is wet and mouldy and it stinks—yet we expect kids to sit on it; adults would not. I remember one school I taught at where we had I think 16 demountable rooms—they are those cubic metal boxes—and we took temperatures in those rooms in the summer. It got to 46 degrees. Of course they were fitted with the moulded plastic chairs that went from the shoulder blades down to the thighs and, when kids got up from those chairs, they were a lather of sweat from their shoulder blades to their thighs. These are the sorts of things that we foist on children, yet we have a Prime Minister and a minister for education who are prepared to stand up and say, `We have done enough as far as education is concerned.' That is rubbish, and the people of Australia do not believe it. If we are a country that is not convinced that we should invest in our children, then we have no future because they are our future.I referred to the education minister previously, and let me include his favourite comment when he comes to the dispatch box. He always comes to the dispatch box in response to a dorothy dixer; he rarely gets asked questions from our side because we know he will sing the same song whatever the question. He always comes here and talks about choice. What choice is he talking about? What does he mean? What he really means is: `I like to give parents the choice of whether they go to a public school here or whether they go to a private school there.' I guess that is what this debate is all about, because this government is certainly magnifying the assistance that is going to the private schools.But that really is not what educational choice is about. Educational choice should be about the curriculum; it should be about the range of subjects that are offered. What this minister is talking about is not that—and let me explain. The fragmentation of schools, particularly in regional Australia, actively reduces choice. There is an optimum size for a school to offer the fullest range of subjects. The minister should be aware of that. As I said, I taught science. I know that, unless your senior classes have enough students, you cannot offer them six periods face to face for a subject going into the HSC. For every lesson where a teacher is taken away from them, their chances are reduced. When the school population in the senior school collapses, the choice of subject range is also reduced.This minister should know that, and yet he will stand up here and say that it is about choice. If we extrapolate his argument, we could take a town that has a single secondary school of 800 to 1,000 students. This minister, I am sure, would be happy to come in and support any group that might want to open up a private school in opposition, and so you finish up with, say, one school of about 600 and another of about 400, or maybe two equal schools of about 500 each. The point is that the subject choice will drop. So, actually, what this minister is talking about is a reduction in choice, and that is what fragmentation of our educational system will do, particularly in regional and rural Australia, which is where people already have a reduced choice.I actually get very angry when I hear the minister going on about choice, because he obviously does not know what he is talking about. He could be talking about a different sort of choice, a choice that I remember because I am old enough to have taught in the pre-Whitlam era. I do remember the choice that parents had to make then: parents who could not afford to send both their children to university always had to make the choice about which one they sent. Often, it was the girl who missed out because parents would say, `Oh well, she's only going to get married.' So that is one of the reasons that the pre-Whitlam generation did not have the same number of female graduates representing them, nor do they have that unless they have gone to university since that time.What a choice! But that is the sort of thing that I feel we are coming back to under this government, because this government keeps telling us that it wants more and more people to choose private education. That is what it wants, and yet a report out over the weekend shows that fewer and fewer Australians are able to save. How can they make that choice? Obviously, they cannot make it on economic grounds, because they do not have the financial resources to do it. But, through the actions of this government, more and more Australian parents are being denied access to quality education through the public system. I quite categorically accuse this government of deliberately trying to undermine public education. They are doing it subtly, they are doing it in the name of choice, but they are doing it—and the people of Australia are not being fooled by it.It is interesting that, post budget, I sent a newsletter to many people in my electorate and I asked them to indicate the most important issues to them. Regardless of age, the overwhelming response was health, education and aged care. They are the issues that the people want addressed. They want a government to attack them. They want a government to ensure that the people of Australia can look on the public education system as the best system, as the system that offers the full range of choices, offers equal to the best teachers and is fully resourced. They are fed up with the second-class and overcrowded classrooms in public schools. They are fed up with kids who get to 13 and who fall through the system because extracurricular activities are not available, the sorts of kids who are non-achievers or low achievers and do not enjoy being at school—and what do we do with those kids? Unfortunately, because of the lack of resources, many of them are told, `Go away from school and don't come back.'So what do we find now? We find that those kids are ganging up, they are antisocial, they are creating havoc out there in the community—vandalism, petty thieving, petty crime. They really should be at school but, because public education in particular is underresourced—and I say `public education' because private schools certainly will not have those sorts of kids around; they say, `You go off to the public system'—and the public system is straining under the load, we find that law and order becomes a problem where you have a number of these students.This is where the government has not thought through a total policy for young Australians and about maximising what we can do with them. Even those antisocial kids are going to be with us for a long time. They are the responsibility of the whole community. If we can get them through an early intervention program, if we can change their direction, if we can encourage them on to an area where they can achieve and give them the opportunity to realise, `Hey, I am a decent person; I can do something,' then we will turn them around. But while we shun them, while we turn our backs on them, as is happening today, they will grow into a greater problem whereby they will finish up in jail—and of course we know what happens then. Then they have contact with the hardened criminals, and that is the way they will spend the rest of their lives.Education is the greatest thing that we can give the children of Australia. It must be given freely, it must be given with equal opportunity and it must be given so that everyone can access it and have the opportunity to be successful at it. And yet this government denies that. This government is taking us down a path where the best education will be available only to the wealthy—and that is certainly not Australian. We have a Prime Minister who jumped up in question time today and said, `This government has done enough on education.' I would like to tell him that in no way is that right. Whenever he calls the election, the people of Australia will get the message through to him that they are certainly not happy with the way he and his minister for education have treated the people who use the public education system in Australia.21:38:0029775Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001 purports to be about improving literacy in Australian schools. But, like so much of the agenda of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, this commitment to improving literacy is more about shoring up an ideological position than actually responding to the needs impacting on education out in the community in any real or meaningful way.As the shadow minister for education has outlined previously, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has invested an enormous amount of time and resources in constructing a particular environment that suits his agenda. First, he dismissed a study into literacy standards that was commissioned in 1994 and released in 1996 because it did not come up with the results he needed to support his claim that there was a crisis in literacy amongst Australian school students. The minister then set about devising a new benchmark, whereby the same data collated in the 1996 report could produce different conclusions that then supported the minister's position. It appears that much of his energy as minister has been devoted to proving that there is some sort of crisis that he can then sweep in and save our students from. So it is fair to ask now that he has the figures that he wanted: what has he as the minister for education done to address this literacy problem that he worked so hard to reveal? Not a lot, as it turns out. There has been some repackaging and rebadging of existing programs, and of course there has been $145 million handed out to 58 of the wealthiest schools in Australia. But as I visit schools in my electorate and talk to teachers and parents, I have become only too aware that schools need support from government to address a number of issues that impact on the success of children's education. Dr Kemp has chosen to meet that challenge by manufacturing a contrived debate over basic skills testing, which everyone supports anyway and many states have carried out for years. His answer to solving the challenges thrown up by the results of those skills tests is to give millions of dollars to wealthy schools while ignoring the greater needs of the many thousands of government and non-government schools outside the affluent suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne.So what is it that the minister is overlooking in his continued ideological obsession? What problems and opportunities are there on the ground out in the real world? I would like to tell the minister about a few in my electorate. They are certainly varied, but no-one could ever argue that they are not seeking to address the fundamental issues that contribute to better educational outcomes.The first is the Clermont Hostel for Regional Education. This is a really great idea that has a lot of potential for providing quality education as well as economic benefits for the rural town of Clermont in the Central Highlands. The proposal is to take the singlemen's quarters that stand empty in the town at the moment—they are owned by Blair Athol Coal—and turn them into a boarding facility for students on isolated properties to come in to attend Clermont State High School. Blair Athol Coal has offered the building out for public tender and has indicated to a number of community representatives and people associated with the high school that it would actually provide the facility to the community at a very low cost, or maybe even at nil cost. The Clermont Economic Development Group have grabbed this opportunity, and I would say full marks to them for the work that they have put into this project.There are just so many benefits that could come from this project. For a start, kids out on the isolated properties who are currently getting education through the distance education scheme—and there is nothing wrong with that—would be given an opportunity to come into Clermont, mix with other kids and have face-to-face schooling, without going too far away from home or putting their parents to the expense of private boarding schools on the coast. So it is a lot cheaper, and the kids could even go home on weekends to work on the property, help out mum and dad and keep that family contact going.The benefits for the town would also be very great. In the short-term, you would have employment where people could have jobs looking after students at the facility. Money would be coming into the town, because you would have 20 or so kids needing food and clothes and, I guess, a night out or a walk down the street to spend their money in the afternoons after school. Parents would probably come into town to see their kids on weekends, instead of again driving to the coast and spending their money in the larger centres. It would also secure the numbers at Clermont State High School. In fact, when the member for Paterson was talking about that issue, it was the first time I had thought about it in those terms. But keeping kids at these borderline state high schools in rural towns is very important, and this proposal would have the benefit of putting more kids into the Clermont high school, thus allowing that school to offer more subject choice and stopping the downward spiral of kids leaving and teachers being withdrawn, which leads to more kids being encouraged to leave because subjects are no longer being offered. In the long term, the benefits are that these kids will not be going off into Rockhampton, Mackay or Yeppoon for boarding school, and there is more of a chance that they will stay in Clermont and look for opportunities in agriculture, mining and apprenticeships with local businesspeople, thus becoming the next generation of businesspeople and townspeople there. The facility is a ripper. I went through it a couple of weeks ago with people from the Clermont Economic Development Group. It is quite a new facility. It is very well appointed. It could easily house anywhere from 25 to 100 students. The great thing about it is that it is right in the middle of town, and so it would really add life to the whole town and give the place a bit of a boost.The Clermont Economic Development Group is currently seeking federal government support. I have spoken on their behalf to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald, and I told him about the project and the things I think it can bring to the students and to the town of Clermont. The group has applied to the Regional Solutions Program and they are asking for $10,000 to conduct a feasibility study. In fact, the total amount of funding that they would be looking for from the government is in the range of only $40,000 to get this up and running and to have students living in that hostel facility in a very short space of time. I hope that the government will support that project when the opportunity arises through the Regional Solutions Program.The second project I think is worth mentioning in the House is the Rockhampton High School no dole initiative. This is another project with enormous potential to make a big difference to the educational success of students in my electorate. The idea of the no dole program is borrowed from a project in Launceston at the Brookes High School. The project is a joint project between Rockhampton High School and the Beacon Foundation. It is based on building very strong links between the school and its students, and the local business community.I attended a ceremony last Friday where representatives from the business community and local community leaders were invited along to witness the grade 12 students at Rockhampton High School sign their no dole pledge where they undertook that, at the end of their year of grade 12, they will enter the work force, a training scheme or apprenticeship, or higher education. Of course, Friday's event was very symbolic, although it was an extremely positive occasion. However, the school does not just leave it there. The kids do not just sign this pledge and we all just hope for the best and all feel good about it. The school and the Beacon Foundation, which is responsible for bringing in the business community behind it, have put together a comprehensive package of support measures around these students. Although it involves grade 12 students this year for the first year, it is going to be extended to younger students as the program develops.It is about getting students to focus on their future and not to just worry about it when they get there, as it is probably tempting to do when you are 15 years old and invincible. It is very much about getting the kids to focus on what their goals are, what their goals could be, and what support they might need to find out more about a career choice or educational program and what help they need to achieve those goals. It starts with interviews with the school principal to knuckle down with these kids as to where they are heading, and to identify any kids who are likely to fall through the gaps and not have a future following their grade 12 education. There is then an introduction to potential employers and about 80 people from the Rockhampton business community went to the school a month or so ago and sat down with students to introduce them to the idea of the world of work and the options available to them locally. It is not just work experience; it incorporates the businesses from the local community into the school in a very ongoing and active way. The program includes mentoring with students making links with businesses and developing that mentoring role with business representatives. It is also about monitoring. The kids are constantly being pulled up and being asked where they are going and heading, and whether they are being helped to develop the skills to get where they want to go. The program is also about networking. It exposes the kids to life outside of school and helps them to understand what their opportunities might be. The initiative is very proactive and I am very proud to see it starting out in Rockhampton. A lot of congratulations must go to the high school and to the Beacon Foundation. As I said, it is the second such program in Australia, and the first in Queensland. I look forward to seeing the success from that program over the coming years, not just for the current grade 12s, but for the students coming through Rockhampton High School.The third project I wanted to talk about involves the full service schools in my electorate. I have spoken about the full service schools on numerous occasions and just in case officials at Dr Kemp's office are tearing their hair out thinking, `Doesn't she get it? We're not funding these any more,' just because the federal government is not funding them any more, that does not mean that you should not be funding them. The full service schools for students at risk in Rockhampton and Yeppoon are currently soldiering on thanks to dedication and community support. It has been a big blow to these communities to understand that federal funding for the schools has dried up. The impact of this lack of funding is being felt in our communities and it is a great credit to the staff and the community, and indeed to the students themselves, that these full service schools will survive at least until the end of this year. Staff of the Yeppoon full service school will be speaking to the new principal of Yeppoon State High School, Roseanne McDade, to discuss informally the future—if any—for the full service school in that town. Education Queensland has been supportive of the work of the full service schools so I hope that this discussion will be another step in the right direction.On behalf of the full service school, I also have to say thank you to Livingstone Shire Council, and I acknowledge in particular the efforts of Mayor Bill Ludwig and Councillor Desley Rial. They have been of enormous help in ensuring that the school can operate rent free in its current premises. Unfortunately, the staff has been pared back to two teachers only working with 14 to 15 students a day. As I recall, that is down from the mid-20s earlier this year. The teaching hours have been cut back dramatically to only three days a week. It has been difficult to provide work experience placements so the result is that these young people are at a loose end for four days and they lose focus. In fact, they are really at risk after having come so far. Social problems have already arisen because of this unsatisfactory arrangement and that is no surprise; we always knew that was going to occur.There is a cost to the community if we cannot provide this specialised education service which has really proved its worth. These students want to attend the full service school. They feel that they do not fit in with the mainstream education system, but they know that they can succeed in the right environment. We just cannot ignore them and their potential. The community of Yeppoon has demonstrated strong support for the full service school and, apart from the council, I acknowledge the active role of the Capricorn Coast Mirror and, in particular, its journalist, Judy Wannop, for her articles keeping the community up to date with developments. I heard yesterday about a Yeppoon woman who was considering fostering a child in a developing country, but as the fate of the full service school is such a burning issue, and has been throughout this year, the woman has decided that her charitable dollar is better spent at home. She has committed herself to making a $50 a month donation to the school in Yeppoon. I pay tribute to that lady for her wonderful contribution, and I can assure her that the staff and students greatly appreciate it. All we need is another 120 people like her doing the same thing and we can take charge of the school ourselves. But we seriously need the certainty of base funding to assure the future of the school to keep up its fine work. We need the certainty of base funding so that the school does not have to ration out basic items like printing paper in order to keep costs down. Queensland Health recently donated a computer to the school— another example of strong community support. That is the kind of support that I would think a federal government would find it hard to ignore. I just do not know how the full service school in Rockhampton keeps going. Like Yeppoon, it is relying on a patchwork of funding sources to keep it going for the rest of this year. They are not letting that stop them, though. The school's success can be measured by the fact that 30 students have completed English and maths to year 10 level, something those at-risk students would not have achieved at a mainstream school. Four of those students are now in traineeships. That is a very real outcome for those young people—an outcome that proves that these types of alternative schools are worth while. The Rockhampton school is operating on a part-time basis five days a week. Thanks to an employment program, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teacher aides have been able to come in and play an indispensable role in its operations.We are all sick of hearing that education is a state issue and that state governments should take over those schools accordingly. It is a credit to Queensland Education that it has endeavoured to help, but the national government must recognise that it has a role to play in education as well. Apart from providing education, those schools play an important role in job creation, in crime prevention and in helping to develop good citizens among young people who could easily go off the rails. The only hope for federal government support for those types of education initiatives is the election of a Beazley Labor government at the end of this year. Our plan to establish education priority zones aims to identify priority areas and how we can help communities to meet these needs and help all our youth to reach their potential and go on to enrich their communities.The examples that I have described from my electorate are the sorts of initiatives that could benefit from the implementation of an education priority zone and the federal government funding that will come with it. They are local proposals conceived to address local problems but they need outside additional financial support to truly realise their potential for our community and value to students. Quality education is essential if the young people of Central Queensland are to reach their goals and live life to the fullest. It is also essential if our region is to develop and take advantage of the opportunities that exist in industry, agriculture, tourism, education and research. The families of Central Queensland who are concerned about the quality of education their children are receiving cannot have confidence in a minister who spends his time fighting old battles and whose credibility is undermined by the failure to recognise the inequity in funding wealthy schools while schools in the most disadvantaged communities struggle to support their students with very little Commonwealth assistance.21:55:0029779Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—in reply—I want to make a few remarks at the conclusion of this debate. The debate has raised a number of general issues about school funding, literacy programs, school-to-work programs and the new funding formula for non-government schools. Many of those issues have been canvassed widely in the context of the broader debate about education policy in the community. Unfortunately, many speeches from the other side of the House have sought to perpetuate misunderstandings about the state of literacy in Australia and about the government's policies as they affect schooling, so I will take a few moments to make some remarks about the government's school policies.One claim that has been made from time to time is that there has not been a significant literacy issue that Australia needs to address. It is hard to believe that any responsible person could take that position, but it is indicative of the head-in-the-sand approach that the Labor Party took throughout its 13 years in office that it could suggest that there was not a literacy issue facing Australia. We know that it did nothing over 13 years to address the issue. But when this government came to office, we sought the most expert advice possible on the outcomes of literacy surveys over 20 years. The Australian Council for Educational Research had conducted a large number of panel surveys, interviewing the same students in years 9 on at least two occasions, to investigate the extent to which those students had mastery of literacy and numeracy. Over 20 years, that research indicated that overall about 27 per cent of students—it varied from survey to survey—did not have adequate mastery of literacy and numeracy. The Labor Party, as we recall, had the Disadvantaged Schools Program, on which they spent a billion dollars over 10 years, supposedly to address issues of educational disadvantage. The ACER research showed that over the whole period of the Disadvantaged Schools Program there had been no improvement whatever in the level of literacy and numeracy amongst young Australians in year 9. In 1996, a national schools English literacy survey was undertaken. It had been initiated by the previous government. The rules that were established by the previous government would have ensured that there was no satisfactory central analysis of the results of that survey, so we set up a process that would enable us to have a satisfactory analysis of the results. That same survey showed that about 30 per cent of young Australians did not have literacy and numeracy in year 3 and year 5. That survey was directed at students in those early years of schooling.The ABS has from time to time conducted surveys of adult literacy, which have shown that over 40 per cent of Australian adults find it difficult to accurately read the labels on medicine bottles or simple transport directions. The first issue that was raised with this government by the business community in its consultations on education and training was the issue of literacy. Yet we still have on the other side of the House suggestions that somehow or other this has been a manufactured issue. I think most Australians would be appalled at the continuing disregard by the Labor Party of the most important social justice issue in education today.It has been under this government, with its literacy and numeracy benchmarks, with the establishment of a system of assessment of every child in years 3, 5 and 7, with the establishment of a national literacy plan which requires the assessment of every child as soon as possible after entering school, with the provision of special assistance to those children who are exhibiting literacy difficulties, that we have seen the first measured progress against illiteracy in the early years of schooling in this country for over two decades. Within the last five years, the rate of illiteracy amongst students in year 3 has essentially halved. The proportion of students who do not meet the national benchmarks has declined from around 30 per cent to around 15 per cent, and it varies from state to state. This is a remarkable tribute to the national literacy plan that has been put in place.The member for Dobell and several other members in the course of this debate have claimed that there is no new money for literacy, that the portfolio budget statements show zeros against the literacy measure. All this reveals is that the Labor Party is still not across the normal system of budgeting in this country, where funding for a lapsing program is projected forward in the forward estimates. But it still requires a deliberate government decision to fund this program, and that is precisely what has been done in this case. Without this legislation, there would not be the funding. Therefore, it makes no sense whatsoever to claim that there has not been additional funding provided by the government for literacy and numeracy.Let me make a broader point: the major money for literacy and numeracy is not the special funding in the strategic outcomes program that is to meet special educational needs; the major funding for literacy and numeracy is the $14 billion a year that Australia spends on schooling, because that is what the money is for. Literacy and numeracy is the first call on the schools budget. That money is provided by the Australian community to schools essentially to ensure that every child can read and write, spell and count, and exhibit all the fundamental basic skills that those children will need for their success in their later education. What is more critical than anything else is that there be an appropriate focus on these fundamental skills in those early years of schooling. Throughout the 13 years of the previous Labor government, there was no attempt to ensure that this was the case. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was the minister for education, concealed the results of the literacy surveys. They were never published under Labor because of pressure from the teacher unions. They were published for the first time under this government, and it is this government which has put in place the plan which has halved the rate of illiteracy in those early years.Another claim that has been made in the course of the debate has been that the funds provided for literacy were at the expense of some other program. That argument is also flawed because, if the literacy money had been offset, the reduced program would have been identified as a budget savings measure. It is quite clear from the budget papers that there was no such saving or offset for the literacy money. The fact is that the government's legislation for extra funding for literacy and numeracy clearly demonstrates this government's commitment to this fundamental area of schooling. Indeed, there is not another government in the last two decades in Australia that can claim to have made any progress whatsoever against literacy and numeracy, whereas we can claim to have halved it in the early years and to have continued to make further progress. The Labor Party occasionally cast doubt on this. You see the strange spectacle of state Labor governments attempting to support the federal Labor Party, on the one hand denying that they are improving literacy and numeracy, although they are fundamentally responsible for it, and on the other hand proudly publishing the results of their benchmark surveys which demonstrate that improvements are being made. That is the first set of complete distortions that are coming up in this debate.The debate has also raised other issues about the school to work programs of government. It is hard to see their relevance to this particular piece of legislation but, as we know, second reading debates are very wide ranging. The interesting thing is that these school to work programs, which involve close cooperation between businesses and schools and which have involved so many additional students over the last five years, have all been put in place by this government. It is this government which has lifted the number of students undertaking vocational education and training in the senior years of schooling from 25,000 in 1995 to 170,000 this year. We now have a great many students—some 80,000 to 90,000 students—undertaking structured workplace learning with employers. We now have 50,000 employers working with schools, whereas six years ago there were virtually none. This is having a dramatic effect in lifting retention at school in many high schools around Australia. When youth unemployment has been falling, we have had the remarkable result of retention rising, and that is again a result of the commitment of this government to improve educational opportunities for all young Australians.Some statements were made in the last speech that I heard, sitting here in the chamber, about the Full Service Schools program. This was a speech referring to the situation in Queensland. Of course, the Full Service Schools program was agreed between the Commonwealth and the states to be a two-year program and it provided a wonderful opportunity for state governments to identify what kind of programs were effective in helping young people to remain at school and to make a successful transition from school to post-school life.It is very regrettable that in the state of Queensland there is no additional state money provided for the school to work programs. All the special funding for these programs comes from the Commonwealth and it has come from this government. The state Labor government, with the usual hollow rhetoric that you expect from Labor Party governments, has put in no additional funding whatever to support these programs, again showing how little concern it has to provide effective educational opportunities and an effective transition from school to work for these students. It is very regrettable that the programs which have been highly effective in building up government schools—the programs put in place by the Howard government, despite the fact that the states have primary responsibility—have received no funding support from the state government through special programs. They rely entirely on the Commonwealth, it seems, to undertake the social justice programs that lift educational opportunity for disadvantaged young people in school. This piece of legislation is a very significant piece of legislation that provides further funding for the strategic outcomes program which the Commonwealth uses to assist the states to meet the special learning needs of educationally disadvantaged students. This is particularly in the key areas of literacy and numeracy. It is legislation which I trust will have the support of both sides of the chamber, and I seek the support of the opposition for the legislation.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—On indulgence, I make the point that the Labor Party will not waste the House's time by seeking a division but we will be supporting my second reading amendment on the voices.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill and proposed amendments announced.29782Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.22:12:0029782Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I have some short and specific questions to put to the minister and I would be grateful if he could answer those questions. If he does, I am happy to give the minister an assurance that we can finish this by half past 10.Minister, again tonight you have repeated the claim that the number of students who did not meet the minimum standard of literacy was 27 per cent in 1996 and you claim that has dropped to 14 per cent in 1999. While the minister is consulting with the clerks, I will provide a bit more detail, which is that in a literacy brochure that the minister has been circulating, the following statement is contained:Nationally comparable data on year three reading released in March 2000 show that percentage of Australian year three students not achieving the minimum standard had fallen from 27 per cent in 1996 to around 14 per cent in 1999.The minister has repeated similar claims in the House tonight and his representatives often repeat these claims in public meetings about education. I have a series of short questions, Minister. Do you claim that the figures of 27 per cent and 14 per cent are comparable?22:13:0029782Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I am happy to answer the question. The figure of 30 per cent—or 27 per cent; it depends which particular aspect of the survey you are looking at—is a figure derived from the national schools English literacy survey. It fully conforms with the figures that have been identified, as I have said, over two decades for students in year 9. It is significantly less than the figures the ABS publishes in relation to adult literacy showing the extent of illiteracy in the adult population. It is a figure that was accepted, although not published, by the management committee of the national schools English literacy survey in 1996. So, it is a fair assumption, on the basis of all those studies which are supportive and none which depart from those findings, that the level of illiteracy amongst young people in year 3 in 1996 was 30 per cent or thereabouts.The Commonwealth then instituted the national literacy benchmarks. The level of literacy skill required to meet the year 3 reading benchmark was essentially the same as the level of literacy required to meet the standard of mastery of literacy established by the Australian Council for Educational Research. The benchmark was then applied in several surveys—not nationwide, but in a number of places—in 1998, essentially across the country in 1999, and essentially across the country again in 2000. We have just had the 2001 surveys. The results of those assessments indicate that in each year the national literacy plan has been in place there appear to have been significant improvements in the proportion of students who have basic literacy skills. They show that there has been a significant movement in the proportion of students with literacy skills—in some states to a point where over 90 per cent of students appear to be meeting the basic reading benchmarks. One can debate these data until the cows come home, but the fact is they are the only data available. They are data made available to the public by this government. The Labor Party, in attempting to argue, presumably, that there has been no improvement in literacy, or, if there has, it has been a very slight improvement—I do not know what their claim is; I do not think they know what their position is—beggar credibility. You have over the last three or four years a huge national effort as a result of the national literacy plan to raise literacy standards, and the state governments—Liberal and Labor—have all participated in that effort. To suggest or try to suggest that the most recent figures show no improvement is to absolutely damn and condemn the efforts that have been made by the state governments over this period. It really stretches my imagination to try to work out why the Labor Party would continue to pursue this incredible line—were it not for the fact that they deeply resent the fact that they did nothing for 13 years, that this government has finally addressed the problem and that we are moving to a federal election.22:17:0029783Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—If we are to finish at half past 10, I hope the next answer to a 10-second question is less than four minutes. Minister, the point I was seeking to ask you was whether the figures of 27 per cent, which you claim was the percentage of year 3 students not achieving the minimum standard in 1996, and 14 per cent, which you claim is the figure for 1999, are comparable. The reason I ask is that I would like to know how the figure of 27 per cent was arrived at. In fact, I would ask the minister to confirm that that was based on a sample survey. I would also ask the minister: wasn't the figure of 14 per cent for 1999 arrived at in a very different way? Isn't it a fact that it was based on students in different states doing different tests and having their scores equated using a formula which he negotiated with the state education ministers? How can he argue that a comparison between a sample survey and a manipulated set of statistics based on different tests in different states allows him to compare those apples with oranges?22:18:0029783Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—We now have the extraordinary situation where the Labor Party is apparently arguing that the agreement of all the state governments—Labor and Liberal—to the equating process has somehow or other manipulated statistics, that all these governments have somehow or other committed themselves to statistics which you cannot rely upon. And yet the figures that he is now disputing are based on the assessment of the entire cohort of year 3 and year 5 students around Australia. The state governments themselves use these figures to compare their literacy outcomes with the literacy outcomes in other states. I noted, for example, when I was recently in Queensland, that the Queensland Labor government published the benchmark results for its year 5 students for 1999. The result was that 22 per cent of those year 5 students were not at the literacy benchmark after two years of the national literacy plan. Of course one can assume that there has been an improvement—one would hope there has been an improvement—since 1996, when the national English literacy survey was taken. But the national English literacy survey result is sound. It was agreed by all the education systems in Australia. They put themselves behind the results of that analysis. It was a very large sample; it was entirely reliable. We now have something which is comparably reliable, indeed, one would say even more reliable: the results of the cohort assessments put in place by this government, in which essentially every child is tested and assessed so that their level of literacy can be determined. I regret the fact that the state Labor governments are refusing to tell parents whether their children can read or write against the national standard. They are still attempting to keep information secret, and I think that is deplorable. Nevertheless, they have committed themselves to the validity of these figures and have used these figures to compare their own results with those of the other states and territories. I think that is the complete answer to the question that has been asked by the member for Dobell. 22:21:0029784Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The reason we have raised this issue, not just tonight but in speech after speech in the debate on this bill, the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001, is that that figure of 27 per cent of year 3 students not being able to achieve the minimum standard in 1996 is a furphy. They are bodgie statistics, and this minister knows it. In 1994, a survey was commissioned. When this minister, as the incoming minister for school education in the Howard government, was unhappy with the results of that survey, he sent the data back to get reprocessed, and that is how these bodgie figures of 27 per cent of year 3 students allegedly being unable to meet the minimum standard for literacy were produced.Having produced the bodgie figures, using bodgie statistical methods in 1996, the government then sought to claim that, simply because this man was the minister for education, somehow or other the percentage of kids with literacy problems dropped from 27 per cent to only 14 per cent. Simply because this minister for education sits in the chair, he tried to have us believe that there has been a massive improvement in literacy. The truth is that, in some states, there has been a small improvement in literacy, and that is a good thing for Australia.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPMG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The minister interjects and asks, `How much?' The only way we can tell is to look at a consistent time series of tests. If you look at New South Wales, where they have been testing since Rod Cavalier, Labor minister for education, introduced the testing in 1987, you can see through a consistent time series exactly what has happened with literacy. You certainly cannot conclude what the change has been if you compare the apples with the oranges of a sample survey in 1996, using bodgie statistical methods that you used with the recent figures in 1999. That is not the way you can get any fair comparison. The point we make is that the 27 per cent figure is bodgie, and that is why questions have been asked here tonight. What we should do is to ask the minister—to challenge him here tonight—whether he is prepared to have his bogus claims about changes in literacy tested by an independent third party that both of us can agree on. Is the minister prepared to put his claims about literacy to an independent party that both he and I can agree to?Let me give the minister a second challenge: let him produce to the House any consistent time series on literacy that justifies his claims that there has been a drop from 27 per cent of students with literacy problems to 14 per cent in the time that this mob has been in government. The reason why the minister will not do that—and he will not answer those questions or respond to those challenges, despite what is in the clauses of this bill—is that he knows that he cannot produce data that backs up the bogus claims that he makes. Minister, are you prepared to accept our challenge to have your literacy claims put to the test—put to an independent third party that you and I agree on? Are you prepared to produce in this House any consistent time series state testing data that you believe justifies the claims that you have made in this debate and that lay behind the measures that are contained in the clauses of this bill?22:25:0029784Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I will not go on at length, but this is a pathetic example of ignorance and partisanship. The results that I have mentioned that relate to 1996 are the product not of this government but of the research of the Australian Council for Educational Research. I am prepared to make available to the Labor Party the series extending from 1975 through to 1995—which includes its entire period in office—produced by the Australian Council for Educational Research. It shows that there was absolutely no improvement in literacy over the course of Labor's period in office and that there was something of a decline in the later years. I am prepared to provide him with the results of the national schools English literacy survey on which the figure of 27 per cent is based, which was determined by the management committee and which is the firmest data we could possibly have as to the state of literacy in this country. None of the claims by the member for Dobell that these figures are somehow or other fraudulent or flawed in some way holds any water whatever. They are not figures produced by this government; they are produced by the Australian Council for Educational Research. In fact, if the member for Dobell said them outside the House, the council would probably have a very good claim against him, because they challenge the professional credibility of that body.22:26:0029785Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I can assure the minister that I have repeated those statements outside the House on many occasions. The minister might like to pass on the fact that we have challenged the claims that he made, not least his attempt to equate 27 per cent with the number 30, or one-third. But that goes to his numeracy. The point Labor would make is that we intend to continue this debate outside this chamber for the rest of this year, because we believe this government should be held accountable for its bogus claims on literacy.22:28:0029785Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I move government amendments Nos (1) to (4):(1) Title, page 1 (line 3), omit “, and for related purposes”.(2) Clause 2, page 1 (line 8) to page 2 (line 13), omit the clause, substitute:2 Commencement This Act commences on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.(3) Clause 3, page 2 (line 15), omit “Subject to section 2, each”, substitute “Each”.(4) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 4 (line 18), omit the Schedule, substitute:Schedule 1—States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 20001 Part 1 of Schedule 8 (table item dealing with 2001 program year, column 2)Omit “290,598”, substitute “290,788”.2 Part 1 of Schedule 8 (table item dealing with 2002 program year, column 2)Omit “289,488”, substitute “290,788”.3 Part 1 of Schedule 8 (table item dealing with 2003 program year, column 2)Omit “267,845”, substitute “290,788”.4 Part 1 of Schedule 8 (table item dealing with 2004 program year, column 2)Omit “257,974”, substitute “258,164”.5 Part 1 of Schedule 8 (table item dealing with 2002 program year, column 4)Omit “1,198”, substitute “7,452”.6 Part 1 of Schedule 8 (table item dealing with 2003 program year, column 4)Omit “1,171”, substitute “4,292”.7 Part 2 of Schedule 8 (table)Repeal the table, substitute: Strategic assistance amountsColumn 1Program yearColumn 2Government schools($)Column 3Non-government schools($)2001110561200211056120031105612004110561Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.29786Bill (on motion by Dr Kemp)—by leave—read a third time.Adjournment2978610000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being almost 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.2978622:29:0029786Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00— Tonight I want to speak on yet another problem that our seniors are facing. All members of this place are concerned with the wellbeing of our seniors. We know that if we can provide appropriate programs and encourage our seniors to keep up their levels of fitness, their health levels are going to be maintained and, hopefully, they are going to be able to keep their active lifestyles and stay in their own homes for much longer. An added benefit is that the demand on our health services is diminished and the requirements for extra help and support for our seniors can be delayed for some time. This means that the benefits of providing fitness programs for our seniors far outweigh the cost of providing them. I was amazed recently when a senior contacted my office very concerned that the cost of a fitness class he had been attending had increased dramatically. This mobility program, run by the Gosnells District Branch of the National Seniors Association, is a specialised physical exercise program supervised by physiotherapists. Last year the cost to attend the program for 10 weeks was $5. This year the cost has risen by not five per cent, 10 per cent, 20 per cent or even 50 per cent, but a staggering 100 per cent. I find this truly atrocious. To an age pensioner, this increase is a lot of money. Their pensions are already stretched to the limit, and now we are asking seniors, who really need to attend this program to maintain their quality of life, to find an extra $5. Quite often, those on limited incomes simply do not have the extra cash to be able to absorb these costs.When this program was administered by Home and Community Care, the fees were regulated by HACC's safeguards policy. This meant that they were able to keep the fees low. HACC had to relinquish administration of the program because it did not properly fit into HACC guidelines. That is, HACC is meant to provide support and assistance for the frail and disabled rather than for seniors generally. It would appear that the program was being marketed to people outside the guidelines because there was a lack for programs for seniors generally.It is short-sighted of governments to limit access of seniors to programs because they are fit. Surely the goal should be to maintain their fitness so that they do not develop far greater needs unnecessarily. Royal Perth Hospital is now managing and administering the program. However, this fails to address the shortage of fitness activities needed for seniors generally. It is difficult to address these needs and to focus on promotion of fitness for seniors while concentrating solely on the medical issue of functional disability, but it seems that this occurred because there was no other suitable program available— which is why, when the program attracted participants outside of the guidelines, it was taken over as a state program.It seems to me that to meet the needs of participants there should be two separate exercise programs: one for people who have functional disabilities and the other for people who want to keep themselves fit. What seems to have happened is that they have been lumped into one program because of funding issues. These people have lobbied me to protest on their behalf and to have it put on record that the mobility program should be maintained free of charge for all participants. When I was told about the increase in fees for the fitness class, I looked around my electorate to see if there were alternatives available so that seniors could have a choice. I thought that if they cannot afford the $10 for 10 weeks, perhaps there was somewhere else that they could go. Unfortunately, for the programs that I have been able to locate, which are extremely professionally run and have a great bunch of dedicated volunteers, the cost is at least $10.When we have had the Year of the Older Person and we tell the community that we value what our seniors have contributed and that we want to support them in their years of need, surely the state and federal governments need to match their words with action and coordinate their programs to ensure that the requirements of our seniors are met, as they are most definitely deserved. 2978722:33:0029787Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—The seat of Cook has been so named since 1906 and has a long and proud tradition. Clearly, the seat was named for the landing at Kurnell of Captain James Cook, one of the great explorers in modern history and someone who has a record for Australia to be proud of. If we were to look at the great explorers in history, he would be ranked as one of the greatest. It came as amazing news to me when, two weeks ago, the Sutherland Shire Council met in secret to determine whether they would remove the face of Captain Cook from all the Sutherland Council logos. They said that it was offensive to our indigenous population, that it was no longer a part of modern Australia, and that we had to provide reconciliation in terms of the Aboriginal community that lived in the area. Therefore, they decided it was appropriate to change the logo from Captain Cook to dancing dolphins. With that nomenclature, I may be introduced in this House as `the member for dancing dolphins'. It is not something that appeals to me greatly, and I wish to record the fact that I find the whole suggestion appalling. By all means, it is appropriate that we recognise our indigenous population. By all means, it is appropriate that we see Kurnell as a coming together of two cultures and that we are sensitive to the history of the Dharawal people who inhabited the area. The elders of the tribe, who come regularly to functions in the Sutherland Shire, celebrate the history of the Dharawal people in the area but also look forward to the community going on together. To have this recommendation come through and be the subject of public airing, as it was last week, illustrates the fact that the Sutherland Shire Council have moved out of line with what the community treasures in terms of its own history. There are few councils that have the proud history that we in the Sutherland Shire have. The association with Captain Cook is something that every boy and girl who grows up in the shire is rightly proud of. It is an association that I believe should go long into the future.There have been a lot of claims and counterclaims about who originated the motion and who seconded it. I do not wish to pursue the personalities involved. Instead, I would like to establish very clearly that it was Captain Cook who came to these shores and brought European civilisation to the land of the great south. It is that we celebrate in terms of Captain Cook coming to the shores of Kurnell. While there were some negatives, there were also enormous positives which enabled us to develop as the country we are today. In moving forward as a country, it is important not only to grasp the problems and the issues that confront us today but also to recognise and celebrate our proud heritage and our proud history. There is no greater history or history of which we can be more proud than the history of Captain Cook, the original European discoverer of Australia. He sailed the ship on an exploratory visit to these shores. He landed with the botanists to look at the great range of vegetation that existed here and took word of this incredible land back to Europe. We who are Australians celebrate what we have in Australia but, more than that, we celebrate the great Captain Cook, who came to this country in such magnificent style. Long may he stay in the Sutherland Shire and long may he stay on the official logo of the shire.2978722:38:0029787Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00— Mr Speaker, tonight I want to raise an issue that I think would be of great concern to you and many others in this House. It goes to the heart of whether we as a parliament can properly take account of the community's concerns about a number of issues. In my electorate, I am involved with a campaign that many members of the community are interested in; that is, the lack of any MRI rebatable services in my electorate. A number of members of the community were sufficiently concerned to organise a petition to be tabled in this parliament, urging the parliament to take account of their views. Those listening to this debate or reading the Hansard will not be able to see the petition, but they went to the trouble of actually writing out their concerns on sheets of paper and listing the date and the names, addresses and signatures of over 1,000 community members in my electorate. It is titled `The west suffers yet again' and reads: I am a resident in the western suburbs of Melbourne. I believe that to have free access to an important X-ray procedure called MRI I have to travel into the city of Melbourne where there is a wait of approximately nine weeks. I am told that there is an MRI machine in Footscray but that the government does not fund it. I object to this discrimination against residents of the western suburbs and petition the government to do something about it.You would know, Mr Speaker, that that is not strictly in accordance with the standing orders for a petition to be filed in this House. In accordance with another well-known procedure, I wrote to Minister Reith, the Leader of the House, requesting that he give permission for this petition to be tabled in the parliament, because it is a concern that is being taken seriously, the intent of the petition is quite clear and this is the House of the people where such an issue should be tabled. Unfortunately, the minister did not see fit to grant permission for that petition to be tabled. This strikes at the very core of what we are supposed to do as members of parliament in representing our community. I cannot see what harm could be caused by allowing these views of over 1,000 members of the community to be publicly put on the record. That is why I raise this issue specifically tonight. It raises issues about how we operate as a parliament. I am very concerned that the minister thinks that it is better to hide from this issue rather than have it publicly aired. I also think it is quite outrageous that we require specific words for people to be able to put their views in this parliament. As soon as this petition with over 1,000 signatures was presented to me, I was obviously aware that the form was not correct. I have redrafted a petition, which has been signed by several hundred further members of the public and will be tabled in due course. I will read to the parliament the form that it is in: To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament:This petition of certain residents in the state of Victoria draws the attention of the House to the lack of free access to an MRI machine in the western suburbs of Melbourne.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House takes action to allow the residents in the western suburbs of Melbourne access to a Medicare rebatable MRI machine as soon as possible.It seems to me that the rather arcane or archaic language required does not put the message any more clearly than that which the minister has refused to allow to be tabled in this House. When there is another opportunity, I would like to raise as an ongoing matter of concern that we must allow people to express their views to us and that, when they go to the trouble of doing that in a format which should be regarded as appropriate and is easily understandable, it should be accepted in this House.I also have with me in the parliament a petition on an enormous canvas, some metres long and wide, which was signed by 900 employees at Bradmill Textiles. I can understand that that would not be able to be tabled in this House, but I would like to put on the record that I am very pleased to be able to say that we have got to the position where 500 of those workers will maintain their jobs in Yarraville in my electorate. Unfortunately, approximately 350 people will not have jobs, and I will be doing all in my power to assist them in finding work elsewhere. I thought to mention this because of the contrast in petitions. I can understand why some forms cannot be tabled, but it did not seem that that was the case with the petition regarding MRIs signed by the 1,000 or so members of my community. I think that the minister has been quite outrageous in refusing to acknowledge the views sought to be expressed by the people in my electorate, and I hope that this does not happen in the future. (Time expired)2978822:43:0029788Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10— Tonight I would like to take the opportunity to talk about a very special person in my electorate in my home town of Red Cliffs. I would like to refer to Neil Collinson's slight biography. Neil would not mind me saying that this is not a book that would win a Pulitzer Prize, but it is the very harrowing story of his experience, along with so many other thousands of Australians, in Changi as a prisoner of war. It is a very moving and special story. I think it is important that, after so many years, people like Neil Collinson have recorded their experiences in that place, so that the younger generation can really understand the deprivation and self-sacrifice that those people endured to ensure that a nation like Australia can have the robust style of democracy that we have here. I refer to some of Neil's words in his book titled Kicking with the Wind which are accompanied by photographs, paintings and drawings that the prisoners recorded—photographs of Hellfire Pass and many other places that became infamous. Neil wrote:I was one of the first men to get Berri-Berri in Changi, as I could not eat the rice during the early days and also had trouble eating the old army biscuits owing to my sore mouth. I was still without top teeth and one of the doctors said to me, “Don't worry; it won't be long before we can get you a top set”. Sure enough, a man died and a dentist was able to reshape his set to fit me.It is pretty harrowing stuff. Even more than that, I was especially moved when Neil wrote about three of my uncles, Uncle Herbert, Uncle Jack and Uncle Hughie. Of those three of my father's brothers, only Uncle Hughie was to return from Changi. So the circumstances that heroes like Neil Collinson endured came very close to those that my own family, and those of many other Australians of that generation, endured.I was especially pleased when the government finally recognised the contribution of people like Neil Collinson, who suffered the indignity of imprisonment by the Japanese during World War I, by awarding them a long overdue $25,000 grant as some compensation for their endurance and their long suffering. Neil Collinson is such a great Australian that he has undertaken to use most of that funding in this year of the Centenary of Federation to have a very special Centenary of Federation function in the hostel for the elderly in which he is now accommodated. Such is the nature of the man: truly one of Australia's great citizens. In the epilogue to Neil's biography, there is a tribute to him. It says:For twenty years after the war, Neil was in and out of hospital dozens of times and had about twenty-five operations, mostly on his foot—which had suffered the rigours of tropical ulcers—It took that long for the surgeons to completely remove the effects of the tropical ulcer.Like many other inhabitants of Changi prison, tropical ulcers were a common complaint. When Neil finally returned home in 1946, he returned home to a four-year-old daughter. I often say to the young generation: imagine it and perhaps you will be less inclined to complain that things are not as perfect as you would choose.Neil is a great Australian and I am delighted to have an opportunity to honour him in this parliament and to thank him and the many other thousands of Australians of his generation who made provision for our generation to enjoy the great democracy we have here in Australia. 2978922:48:0029789Short, Leonie, MPMs SHORT9V8RyanALP00—I would like to take this opportunity to draw attention to the wonderful work done by volunteers in my seat of Ryan. As we are all aware, this is the International Year of Volunteers, and special recognition of their contribution to Ryan has been a feature of my work since I became the member in April. I have been impressed by the amount and variety of work our volunteers do and by their dedication. Last week I was privileged to join some of them. Last Wednesday was People's Day at the Brisbane Exhibition and I spent four hours working with the ladies of the Brookfield Country Women's Association, taking orders for sandwiches, hamburgers, pies, cakes, slices, tea and coffee. Taking orders and serving the lunchtime crowds at such an enormous event is not an easy task. After my four hours, I was exhausted. But the ladies I worked with started at six in the morning and they were still there when I left at 2 o'clock that afternoon. These women are all in their sixties and seventies. They stood all day, slicing, cutting, buttering and then serving a great crush of people who were tired and hungry and wanted quick service. One lady in her eighties stood all day, pouring tea and coffee. The Country Women's Association is an Australian institution, and in the electorate of Ryan it remains strong. The CWA members are not the only volunteers who work tirelessly to make Ryan a great community. I draw your attention to the countless school tuckshop workers, the sports club volunteers, the parents who go into schools to help teach reading, maths and art, and the people who deliver Meals on Wheels. Recently I presented awards of appreciation to people who have served overseas as volunteers in order to help make Third World countries better places to live. The Treasurer is not happy with this. He wants people to do more. He wants everyone to do an hour of volunteer work every month. This simplistic recipe, which the Treasurer appears to think will fix a great deal that is wrong with society, not only underestimates the amount of work done by volunteers already but also assumes that those who do not do volunteer work have oodles of time to spare. He seems to forget that many people in the work force are working more and more hours. Many are single parents who are hard-pressed to find enough time to keep their families functioning properly, let alone have any time for themselves. The Treasurer is not satisfied with the effort people are putting into their lives and their families. He wants them to work even harder. Ironically, he seems to be ignorant of the fact that the GST he imposed on charities and other volunteer based organisations has made volunteering a complex and arduous task. I know of organisations that can no longer fill the role of treasurer: it is too demanding for people with already busy lives.I thoroughly enjoyed my experience with the ladies from the Brookfield CWA. The camaraderie and spirit they exuded during their hours of work was inspirational. But volunteerism should not be used as a cheap alternative to the provision of essential services. I can only hope that the Treasurer's misguided notions about volunteering do not discourage such wonderful work.2979022:52:0029790Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I stand before the House tonight to bring to your attention the plight of thousands of investors in my electorate of Kalgoorlie. Many of these people are hardworking Australians who have been unwittingly caught up in tax minimisation schemes and have, as a result, had sizeable tax deductions disallowed by the ATO. These men and women believed that they were doing the responsible thing in making provision for their future wellbeing by investing prudently. We all know that ignorance is no excuse under the law. But, naive as they were, these high income earners were specifically targeted by the sharks who call themselves `financial advisers' promoting these tax minimisation schemes.My electorate has one of the highest income brackets per capita in Australia, and these promoters were well aware of this when they came banging on people's doors, telling them how they could minimise their tax and invest for the future. Most of the people now burnt by the schemes are ordinary hardworking Australians, working long hours in sometimes isolated and rough conditions to make a living. They are not the high living, wine swilling elite trying to dodge tax, or those hiding their assets offshore to avoid paying what is rightly owed to the tax coffers. Most of the people in my electorate were conned and roped into these schemes by fast-talking, confident sales people who targeted these people specifically. The investors contributed in good faith and now are facing prospects of bankruptcy, failed marriages and relationships, business closures and, in the most extreme of cases, suicide.What has happened to the promoters? Many have got off scot-free, with no penalty being imposed at all. I would urge this government to consider any recommendations from the ATO carefully, with a view to giving greater powers to both the ATO and ASIC to enable these promoters to be pursued, investigated and punished to the full extent of the law. I also urge this government to show some compassion for the predicament of these cash stricken investors by freezing collection of tax debts and penalties until test cases before the Federal Court have been determined. I have had numerous discussions with the Assistant Treasurer, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. They are well aware of my views and the plight of these investors. Many of these investors are at the end of their tether. They simply do not have the money being asked of them, and they are considering drastic steps that they would not normally consider as options. Many are being squeezed from both sides, with both the ATO and the scheme promoters demanding payment. I have had hundreds of letters and telephone calls to my offices in Kalgoorlie and South Hedland from investors mainly in the high income areas of the Pilbara and Goldfields. Many of the stories are similar, and in most cases the individual investor profited very little from receiving the substantial tax deductions. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of the deduction went directly to the promoter of the scheme. Tax minimisation schemes and the disallowance of deductions have effectively ruined the lives of these people. The financial implications are major, with billions of dollars now owed to the tax department. But in addition there is the emotional turmoil that has hit ordinary families throughout my electorate.All we are asking is that the collection process and the penalties are frozen until the court process is complete, until the legitimacy of the said tax effective scheme is tested and determined. In our process of law, people are deemed innocent until proven guilty, and I believe that we need to keep that in mind and show that we are keeping it in mind at all times. I believe that this entire debacle is also an indication of the need to ensure that the whole system of taxation self-assessment is better clarified. People still believe that, if they claim a deduction and are sent a cheque from the ATO, that is the end of it. It is by no means the end of it, as more than 60,000 people burnt by tax effective schemes can attest.There is another victim in this whole scenario—an innocent victim suffering simply by being associated with those schemes disallowed by the ATO. There are many legitimate investment opportunities, particularly in the plantation industries, which are finding it increasingly difficult to attract investment. `Tax effective' and even `investment' are dirty words in my electorate; few people are prepared to take the risk in investing in schemes even when the ATO has approved a product ruling. It is a backlash that could severely cripple timber industries in my electorate and put many jobs for contractors and employees at risk. Investment in this type of industry has virtually ground to a halt, and I believe that it will take considerable effort and promotion for the average person to regain the faith needed to invest. The wide ranging effect of these so-called tax effective schemes is going to be felt for many years by business, industry and families and in the economic wellbeing of small communities. I believe that we as a government have a moral responsibility to ensure that in all our dealings we are compassionate, fair and just, and that all assistance is provided to help the individuals and communities affected. I ask that more measures be introduced to help us achieve this.2979122:57:0029791Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Before the House adjourns tonight, I again wish to record that it is criminal that the Minister for Finance and Administration, the Hon. John Fahey, is pursuing the sale of Sydney airport before the end of this year and not honouring the promises given to the people of Sydney in relation to relief from aircraft noise. The long-term operating plan has not been fully or substantially implemented. The latest available figures that I have, which were provided by Airservices Australia as at 31 May this year, show air traffic movements to the north are running at 33.1 per cent. That is double what we were promised under the long-term operating plan of 17 per cent of movements to the north.Worse, there will be no master plan until February 2003; that is, 15 months after the federal election, which we all know is going to be held on Saturday, 17 November. Worse, there is no second airport for the residents of Sydney to provide relief from the increased air traffic movements at Sydney airport. I have mentioned time and again in this House, I have put numerous questions on the Notice Paper and I have campaigned on behalf of my residents and the people of Sydney about the criminality of the minister in his pursuit of the sale of Sydney airport. The sale cannot go ahead until aircraft noise relief is given not only to the residents in my electorate of Lowe but to the people of Sydney, because we were promised by the Liberal coalition government in 1996 that we would be given relief from air traffic noise in Sydney and that the problems would be addressed. They are clearly not being addressed and the government is hell-bent on getting its hands on the $4 billion that is mooted will be received when Sydney airport is sold. That is not good enough, because commitments were given. In the election in 1996, we were crucified on our side of the House because of the operation of the parallel runways and the implications for the people of Sydney and, at the time, the current government promised that it would give air traffic noise relief to the people of Sydney. That has not happened, and that cannot be allowed to continue. The sale of Sydney airport should not go ahead until the government honours its promises and gives noise relief to the residents of Sydney.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing29793The following answers to questions were circulated:29793(Question No. 1906)190629793Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 31 August 2000:(1) What programs based on the principle of pooled Federal and State health funding is the Government trialing and what health services are involved. (2) In each case, how is the day-to-day administration of the funding pool being managed. 29793Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Questions 1 and 2All details may be found by going to the Department's website at www.health.gov.au and searching for “coordinated care trials” and “multipurpose services”. 29793(Question No. 2001)200129793Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 3 October 2000:(1) What is the average or standard cost of providing a woman with in-vitro fertilisation treatment.(2) How much of the cost is (a) covered by Medicare and (b) paid by the patient.29793Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Under the Medicare arrangements, there are a number of different components to in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment and the treatment can be provided where ovulation is unstimulated, or more commonly, may involve the use of drugs to stimulate ovulation. Based on data for the 12 months to June 2000, IVF treatment using unstimulated cycles accounted for approximately 6.1% of treatment cycles.The following statistics therefore assume that the treatment involves the use of stimulated cycles and also includes planning and management services, oocyte retrieval, preparation of semen and the transfer of the embryo or the ova and sperm.These services are covered under the following items in the Medicare Benefits Schedule.13200 Assisted Reproductive Services (such as in-vitro fertilisation, gamete intrafallopian transfer or similar procedures) involving the use of drugs to induce superovulation, and including quantitative estimation of hormones, ultrasound examinations, all treatment counselling and embryology laboratory services - but excluding artificial insemination or transfer of frozen embryos or donated embryos or ova or a service to which item 13203, 13206 or 13218 applies - being services rendered during 1 treatment cycle, if the duration of the treatment cycle is at least 9 days.13209 Planning and management of a referred patient by a specialist for the purpose of treatment by assisted reproductive technologies including in-vitro fertilisation, gamete intra-fallopian transfer and similar procedures, or for artificial insemination - payable once only during 1 treatment cycle.13212 Oocyte retrieval by any means including laparoscopy of ultrasound-guided ova flushing, for the purposes of assisted reproductive technologies including in-vitro fertilisation, gamete intra-fallopian transfer or similar procedures - only if rendered in conjunction with a service to which item 13200 or 13206 applies.13215 Transfer of embryos or both ova and sperm to the female reproductive system, by any means but excluding artificial insemination or the transfer of frozen or donated embryos - only if rendered in conjunction with a service to which item 13200 or 13206 applies, being services rendered in 1 treatment cycle.13221 Preparation of semen for the purposes of assisted reproductive technologies or for artificial insemination.Based on data for the 12 months to June 2000, per treatment cycle, the average Medicare benefit was $1842.78 and the average out-of-pocket expense for items covered by Medicare was $564.77. If patients also require services not covered by Medicare, additional costs may be incurred. For the same period, the average cost per treatment cycle for the associated drug treatment is $1900, the total cost of which is covered under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).The number of treatment cycles each woman would undergo varies, however, the average number of treatment cycles per woman is approximately 2.2. Therefore, the average cost for a woman for IVF treatment covered under the Medicare arrangements and the PBS is $9,476.70. Of this amount, $8,234.20 is covered by the Commonwealth Government.These figures do not include any hospitalisation costs associated with IVF treatment. This is because it is not possible to obtain a definitive correlation between the coding used to classify hospitalisation data with the codes used in the Medicare Benefits Schedule for IVF services. 29794(Question No. 2015)201529794Hoare, Kelly, MPMs Hoare83YCharltonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 4 October 2000:(1) What is the cost, on an annual basis, of the Government's 30 per cent private health insurance rebate scheme.(2) Are premium loadings for people who delay taking up private health insurance membership under the Lifetime Health Cover Scheme covered by the Government's 30 per cent private health insurance premium rebate; if so, what is the projected effect on the total cost of the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate of the Lifetime Health Cover scheme premium loadings.29794Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The total cost of the private health insurance 30 per cent rebate in 1999-2000 is reported in the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care 1999-2000 Annual Report on page 143. (2) Yes, age based premiums (base rate premium including Lifetime Health Cover loading) are covered by the 30 per cent rebate. The expectation is that the majority of people over 30 years old who were going to take out private health insurance have done so prior to the Lifetime Health Cover cut-off date. It is anticipated that only a small number of people will be paying the loading in future years, and the impact on the cost of the rebate will be too small to be taken into account separately in the preparation of the estimates.29794(Question No. 2062)206229794Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 12 October 2000:(1) Did the Government, in negotiations with the Australian Democrats, promise to introduce a National Child Nutrition Program to compensate people on low incomes for the impact of the GST.(2) Have applications been called for under the program; if so, (a) when did applications for the program open and close and (b) what progress has been made in allocating funds and commencing projects. 29794Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government agreed to funding for a National Child Nutrition Program in negotiations with the Australian Democrats.(2) (a) Applications under the general funding round were called for in regional and national newspapers on 11 March 2000. Applications closed on 17 April 2000. (b) An announcement of successful applicants was made on 15 November 2000. Contract negotiations commenced immediately with those applicants.29795(Question No. 2110)211029795Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 1 November 2000:Will he include the drugs Aricept and Exelon, used to treat Alzheimer's Disease, on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule; if so, when; if not, why not.29795Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Aricept and Exelon have recently been approved for listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) following a recommendation from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). The PBS listings for these medicines were effective from 1 February 2001.29795(Question No. 2116)211629795Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 2 November 2000:For each Federal electorate, what are the names of the private hospitals located within its boundaries and how many beds does each hospital provide.29795Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Department of Health and Aged Care prepares electorate profiles annually for each Federal electorate in Australia. These profiles include the names of all private hospitals in each electorate. They also include the total number of private hospital beds per thousand population for each electorate. Information on the number of beds for each private hospital are not published in the electorate profiles because of the variable nature of bed availability in individual private hospitals at different times of the year and because of different regulatory arrangements in respect of private hospital bed numbers across State/Territory jurisdictions.The June 2000 profiles were distributed to all Members in October 2000 and are also available in the Parliamentary Library.29795(Question No. 2137)213729795Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 7 November 2000:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 1924 (Hansard, 2 November 2000, page 19584), has his Department advised him of expected savings for public hospitals from the 30% private health insurance rebate; if so, what does the advice reveal.(2) What cost benefit outcome for public hospitals does the Government expect to achieve from the 30% rebate.29795Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) It has been the practice of successive governments not to reveal details of policy advice provided by the Department to the Minister.(2) The 30% rebate is intended to ensure the sustainability of the health financing system as a whole by restoring the balance between private and public sector funding.29795(Question No. 2169)216929795Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LawrenceXS4FremantleALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 27 November 2000:(1) Prior to being reimbursed by the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) for the provision of traditionally non-medical services such as acupuncture, naturopathy, homoeopathy or manipulation, are medical practitioners required to have attained formal distinct accreditation in those services; if not, will the Government close this loophole.(2) Specifically regarding spinal manipulation, do medical undergraduate courses in Australia provide education and supervised clinical experience that equate with the qualifications required by State and Territory Governments of a chiropractor or an osteopath to gain registration; if not, do State medical registration boards know which medical registrants have completed post-graduate training that would equate with the qualifications required by State and Territory Governments of a chiropractor or an osteopath. (3) Do State medical registration boards provide the HIC with a record showing which registrants have, or do not have, that equivalent qualification to provide spinal manipulation.(4) What arrangements does the Federal Government have in place to permit the HIC to differentiate between those medical providers who have, and those medical providers who do not have, that equivalent qualification to provide spinal manipulation.(5) Does the HIC know which medical providers are, or are not, qualified to provide spinal manipulation.(6) Is it a fact that the HIC will reimburse a medical provider for the provision of manipulation without requiring that the provider has attained a separate and distinct qualification with regard to manipulation.29796Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1-6) Medicare benefits are paid for medically necessary services. Accreditation of medical practitioners for the performance of specific services has never been part of Medicare, nor are there plans to make it so. If medical practitioners practice beyond their training, it is a matter for State and Territory medical boards to determine what action should be taken, not the Commonwealth Government.29796(Question No. 2179)217929796Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 28 November 2000:(1) Has the Commonwealth Government eliminated Commonwealth public funding for dental care.(2) Have Commonwealth Government cutbacks in dental funding had a crippling impact on NSW dental services.(3) Is the average waiting period for dental surgery at the Dental Clinic at Concord Hospital 18 months.(4) Are dental services a joint Commonwealth and State Government health responsibility.(5) Will the Commonwealth Government reinstate Commonwealth funding for public dental services.(6) Will the Commonwealth Government facilitate negotiations with the State Government to enter into a Commonwealth-State agreement on dental services that clearly outlines the responsibilities of each party.29796Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. The Program came to an end. (2) No. If NSW dental services are under-funded it is a matter for the NSW Government. (3) I am unable to comment on the situation at the Concord Hospital Dental Clinic. Questions concerning specific services in NSW should be directed to the NSW Minister for Health, the Hon. C.J. Knowles MP.(4) No.(5) No.(6) No. Dental services are a State responsibility.29796(Question No. 2238)223829796Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 7 December 2000:(1) For each broad type of service categorised in the Medicare statistics, what percentage of services is (a) direct billed and (b) billed at or below Medicare Schedule fees. (2) What do the figures referred to in part (1) indicate about the (a) supply of specialist services, (b) inflation of specialists' incomes and (c) extent of competition among the various specialist groups.29797Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Details of the percentage of services that were bulk billed, by broad type of service in 1999-00, are available on the Health Insurance Commission web site at www.hic.gov.au. Details of the percentage of services that were billed at or below Medicare Schedule fees, by broad type of service in 1999-00, are as follows: Broad Type of Service Group% Billed at or Below Schedule FeesUnreferred Attendances— GP/VR81.9 Enhanced Primary Care99.7 Other87.8 Total82.6Specialist Attendances53.5Obstetrics45.3Anaesthetics28.9Pathology— Patient Episode Initiation91.6 Tests93.0 Total92.5Diagnostic Imaging74.9Operations64.4Assistance at Operations42.1Optometry99.2Radiotherapy & Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine79.7Other74.2Total81.2 (2) It is difficult to draw any conclusions about specialist supply; inflation of specialists' incomes; and extent of specialist competition from the data in part (1).For example, while it is often claimed that a greater supply of doctors results in increased bulk billing, the ACT has a relatively high supply of GPs and a relatively low rate of bulk billing for GP services.Similarly, the data in part (1) prima facie suggest a difference in supply in doctors conducting operations and doctors assisting at operations that does not exist.29797(Question No. 2252)225229797Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 7 December 2000:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 1441 (Hansard, 6 September 2000, page 20370), is it in the public interest to know what percentage of operations under items 34643 and 16525 result in pregnancy termination.(2) Further to part (3) of his answer, is he willing to introduce new item codes that separate that percentage of operations procured under Item 34643 and 16525 for curettage of uterus which separates those operations that do, and do not, procure a miscarriage; if so, when will the introduction of new item codes take place.(3) Is he able to estimate the number of late term (terminations occurring on or after the twentieth week of pregnancy) pregnancy abortions that are committed in Australia each year; if not, why not.29797Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Although the question refers to Item 34643, I assume the honourable member is referring to Item 35643. Medicare benefits are payable for clinically relevant services. In paying Medicare benefits, the Government assumes that the service was clinically relevant and preformed in accordance with professional standards and relevant State law, unless a medical board or court decision deems otherwise. Medicare does not record the reasons for a termination, the stage of pregnancy nor the method of abortion. Medicare statistics do not include information that would allow the calculation of the percentage of services provided under item 16525 and 35643 for termination of pregnancy. The matter of whether or not it is in the public interest to know what percentage of these services result in pregnancy termination, would be based on value judgements and would have to be considered in the context of competing public interests.(2) No. (3) No it is not possible to estimate the number of late term pregnancy abortions that occur in Australia each year. Medicare does not record the stage of pregnancy nor as stated previously, information on the number of services provided under Item 16525 and 35643 which result in termination of pregnancy. 29798(Question No. 2253)225329798Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 7 December 2000:(1) How many persons taking out private health care policies on or before the 1 July 2000 deadline, have taken out more than basic health care cover.(2) Are these new private health care policy holders still eligible for Medicare and public health cover for items not covered by their private health cover.29798Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Private Health Insurance Administration Council (PHIAC) collects data on private health insurance membership. However, PHIAC does not collect information by health insurance product (table). Therefore there is no information collected by PHIAC on the number of people who have a product equivalent to the old `basic table' products. These products provide people with a level of cover suitable for private treatment in a public hospital. (2) There is no loss of entitlement under Medicare just because a person has private health insurance. For example, a person with private health insurance still has the right to choose whether they want to be a public or a private patient when they are admitted to a public hospital.29798(Question No. 2391)239129798Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom849BraddonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 1 March 2001:(1) Is the Minister's Department, or are agencies within the portfolio, large purchasers or consumers of office papers.(2) How are Commonwealth procurement guidelines being adhered to by the Minister's Department and agencies within the portfolio.(3) What methodology or weighting criteria does the Minister's Department and agencies use to determine the importance of the core principles which underpin the procurement guidelines, namely (a) value for money, (b) open and effective competition, (c) ethics and fair dealing, (d) accountability and reporting, (e) national competitiveness and industry development and (f) support for other Commonwealth policies.(4) What weighting criteria are used to implement the mandatory provisions in the guidelines which state that agencies must be able to demonstrate that Australia New Zealand (ANZ) suppliers have had a fair opportunity to compete.(5) In inviting suppliers to tender the provision of goods, are suppliers advised that they must offer ANZ goods. (6) If the Minister's Department or agencies within the portfolio do not have weighting criteria for determining principles, will the Minister take steps to ensure that they provide an appropriate means to demonstrate their compliance with Commonwealth procurement policy.29799Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department of Health and Aged Care and its portfolio agencies are large purchasers and consumers of office paper.(2) The Department of Health and Aged Care and its portfolio agencies that are governed by the Financial Management and Accountability (FMA) Act, all adhere to the principles set down by the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines (CPGs). This is achieved through the seeking of competitive quotes and tender processes whenever appropriate. Wherever possible standard documentation is used for tenders encompassing the CPG requirements. The Department's Chief Executive Instructions and Procedural Rules provide direction on the application of the CPGs. In addition to the CPGs, consideration is also given to other related Commonwealth initiatives including consideration for small/medium enterprises and the introduction of e-procurement. The portfolio agencies that are governed by the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies (CAC) Act, are not bound by the CPGs. However, these agencies voluntarily adhere to the Guidelines.(3) The Department provides comprehensive guidance on the importance of adhering to the CPG principles in its Procedural Rules. The Department has a standard template for all tenders, which encompasses the core principles listed above. There is no predetermined weighting criteria applied to tenders and it is up to the discretion of the individuals concerned to determine the weight for each criteria on a case by case basis. Value for money is the prime consideration for the majority of purchases by the Department and its portfolio agencies.(4) As mentioned above, there is no pre-defined weighting criteria applied to the ANZ supplier provision. All prospective suppliers must comply with the conditions stated in the tender documentation, with particular emphasis placed on the importance of ANZ supply wherever appropriate.It should be noted that the CPGs do not provide a specific definition as to what constitutes an ANZ supplier eg: ownership of the company, number of employees engaged in Australia etc. Consequently, this criterion is often difficult to evaluate.(5) Agencies under the FMA Act advise suppliers that they must offer ANZ goods if they are available. When alternative goods are offered, this must be clearly specified. Preference will usually be given to ANZ goods provided they also meet the criteria of overall value for money.CAC Act agencies encourage suppliers to offer ANZ goods.(6) The Department and its FMA Act agencies apply appropriate weighting to criteria on a case by case basis. The Department and its agencies currently adhere to the CPGs as demonstrated in tender documentation, and the evaluation methodology may be varied, depending on the particular requirements of each purchase. It is not intended to change this practice, as consideration is always given to the principles of the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines.29799(Question No. 2452)245229799Hoare, Kelly, MPMs Hoare83YCharltonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 26 March 2001:(1) Has the Government provided $200 000 to the Hunter Urban Division of GPs (HUDGP) to fund a study into plans to establish a GPs' cooperative in the region.(2) Has the Government funded a number of studies by GP groups to look at the increased corporatisation of medicine.(3) If so, (a) what funding was provided and to which groups, (b) under what program was the funding provided and (c) what were the guidelines determining the allocation of funding.29799Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes (2) The Minister has approved funding for seven projects over the next five to twelve months at a total cost of $1.17 million. The projects are feasibility studies into alternative models to corporatisation in general practice.(3) (a)— Hunter Division of General Practice$200,000ACT Division of General Practice Inc.$123,600A consortium of five Victorian Divisions of General Practice$114,480Adelaide Northern Division of General Practice$213,000Whitehorse Division of General Practice Ltd$147,300General Practice Divisions of Western Australia Ltd$300,000Western Sydney Division of General Practice Inc.$70,000Total$1,168,380The consortium of five Victorian Divisions includes Western Melbourne, Melbourne, Northern Melbourne, North West Melbourne, and Border Divisions of General Practice. The project being conducted by the General Practice Divisions of Western Australia involves 14 Western Australian Divisions. (b) GP infrastructure, training and support. (c) All expressions of interest received were reviewed against an agreed set of criteria, by a selection panel consisting of representatives from Australian Divisions of General Practice, the General Practice Partnership Advisory Council/General Practice Financing Group Joint Working Group on Corporatisation, portfolio steering committee on corporatisation (Department of Health and Aged Care), and the General Practice Branch in the Department.The assessment criteria were developed against the requirements requested in the proposals, as advertised via an Australian Divisions of General Practice Newsflash:A feasibility plan for Division based corporate general practice, including:· The concept, objectives and proposed outcomes;· Methodology;· Approaches to management and governance;· The level of support from general practitioners within the Division;· Timelines;· An evaluation plan; and· Budget, with justification.A business plan demonstrating the viability of the proposal alternative to corporatisation.The assessment panel then ranked the proposals and forwarded recommendations for funding to the Minister.29800(Question No. 2473)247329800Roxon, Nicola, MPMs Roxon83KGellibrandALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 27 March 2001:(1) When will the Blandford MRI Services Implementation Committee release the tender guidelines for additional MRI services to be funded under Medicare.(2) How have the areas to be served by the 7 additional MRI scanners been selected.(3) Will the distribution of the scanners be directed to fill the gap in growth areas such as the western suburbs of Melbourne.(4) Will Footscray and Sunshine be included in the areas covered by the tender process; if not, what are the grounds for their exclusion.(5) Will the existing privately owned machines in Footscray and Sunshine be eligible to take part in the tender process; if not, what are the grounds on which they will be excluded and what impact will this have on the western suburbs of Melbourne.(6) What will be the impact of the Blandford recommendations on rural and regional Victoria. (7) Why was there a 10 month gap between the receipt of the original report by Professor Blandford and the establishment of the Implementation Committee.(8) Why has there been a further 4 month delay in the calling of tenders.(9) Will the process be completed for new scanners to be eligible for Medicare rebates by 1 July 2001.29801Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Request for Tender for additional MRI services was released in May 2001.(2) The areas have been selected having regard to the distribution of existing Medicare eligible MRI services relative to population, and in consultation with State and Territory Governments.(3) As the tendering process is still ongoing it would be inappropriate to comment at this time.(4) As the tendering process is still ongoing it would be inappropriate to comment at this time.(5) Any machines that meet the tender selection criteria will be eligible to take part in the process.(6) The Blandford recommendations seek to improve accessibility to MRI services for people living in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.(7) Following the receipt of Professor Blandford's report, the recommendations of the report were fully considered prior to the establishment of the Committee. The establishment of such a committee is a time consuming process.(8) The review did not recommend an immediate call for tenders. A considerable amount of work has been required to fully develop the tender documentation.(9) As the tendering process is still ongoing it would be inappropriate to comment at this time.29801(Question No. 2554)255429801Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:(1) With regard to the Albury/Wodonga Hume Highway route selection, process, did he undertake on 18 July 2000, in confirming the appointment of Flagstaff Consulting, that Flagstaff's job included providing an independent audit of the Connell Wagner report into the project.(2) Did Flagstaff write to his Department on 22 March 2001, confirming that it was not able to endorse any of the project benefit cost ratios (BCRs) if so, why.(3) Is he required to release a Regional Impact Statement on his policy decision of 21 February 2001 to build a single lane external bypass; if so, when will it be released.(4) In his open letter of 22 May 2000 to the people of Albury Wodonga, did he state that he would proceed on the basis of the principles agreed with the Victorian and NSW Governments that all aspects of the project would be examined, and not just cost.(5) In making his decision of 21 February 2001, did he consult with the NSW and Victorian Governments before announcing his preferred position; if not, why not.(6) Did he reject Flagstaff's accusation to his Department that his decision was based on draft un-audited costs and not on proper audited figures, as promised in his statement of 18 July 2000 in which he stated it would not be lawful or responsible to spend taxpayers money in an irresponsible manner.(7) Was his decision made upon fully audited evidence, including (a) the cost of the various road options, (b) traffic anlyses of the various road options, (c) the economic benefits of the various road options and (d) the BCR benefits of the various road options.29801Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. (2) No. However, Flagstaff did write to my Department on 27 March 2001 and it stated that it was not able to confirm any of the BCRs in the draft report of the review of the project. Flagstaff was not satisfied by the quality of the traffic analysis carried out by Connell Wagner. It could not endorse the economic analysis because this depended on the quality of the traffic analysis.(3) No. (4) The principles that I referred to in my open letter, are the requirements that State Governments must meet in relation to such matters as planning, design and environmental concerns when they put forward projects to the Federal Government for funding. The Federal Government fully funds this work. (5) In my open letter I proposed additional work by the end of September 2000 to enable me to make a decision on the Federal Government's preference in relation to the route by the end of 2000. This timetable allowed time for consultation between Governments. However, the initial response to my request was so tardy, and of such a low standard, that there was no prospect of finalising it to an acceptable standard within a reasonable period. I was therefore obliged to cut short this process. I subsequently wrote to the NSW Minister for Roads, the Hon Carl Scully MP, and the Victorian Minister for Transport, the Hon Peter Batchelor MP, to inform them of my decision and to invite their cooperation.(6) No, Flagstaff did not make any comment on my decision. Flagstaff has generally endorsed the costs produced in the latest draft of the report of the review, although it considers there are opportunities for cost savings in the case of some options. (7) I made my decision on the route on the basis of audited project costs, and advice that further work on the bypass review was unlikely to show a compelling case for the internal route rather than the external route on the basis of benefit/cost analysis.29802(Question No. 2596)259629802Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 24 May 2001:Are there plans to offer incentives for Disability Support pensioners who wish to establish their own businesses and work towards being self-employed and no longer requiring government assistance.29802Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:FaCS Funded Disability Employment Assistance· Disability employment assistance providers can help people with disabilities with their support needs while setting up in self-employment. This assistance will be boosted by the Australians Working Together package announced in the recent Budget, which includes $134m over four years in increased employment and rehabilitation assistance. · Other features of Australians Working Together that will improve incentives for people with disabilities to take up employment include the introduction of a Literacy and Numeracy Training Supplement and a Working Credit, which will allow people to keep more of their income support payment while working. New Enterprise Incentive Scheme· DSP recipients can access the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme (NEIS), which is run by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB). · NEIS is specifically designed to help eligible working age income support recipients to achieve independence through establishing their own businesses. · NEIS applicants are evaluated on personal and business criteria and are assessed on a competitive basis. · NEIS participants are generally required to work towards the establishment of a full-time business. For DSP customers this full-time self-employment requirement has been relaxed to 20 hours per week.· DEWRSB has advised that 236 people in receipt of DSP participated in the NEIS programme from the start of Job Network on 1 May 1998 up until 2 June 2001.· Further questions about NEIS should be directed to the Minister for Employment Services.Work Place Modifications Scheme · Since February 2001 people with disabilities who participate in NEIS may also be able to access the Workplace Modifications Scheme. · This Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) program assists with the cost of workplace modifications, or special or adaptive equipment for people with a disability, including those aiming to achieve self-employment through the NEIS program.There are no plans to offer further specific incentives for Disability Support Pension (DSP) recipients to achieve self-employment in addition to current programs that exist for this purpose.29803(Question No. 2604)260429803Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:(1) Will small businesses importing only several vehicles each year to convert to right-hand drive have to close down their businesses due to the costs imposed by the Registered Automotive Workshop Scheme.(2) Will he put in place measures to assist small businesses to remain viable.29803Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) The Registered Automotive Workshop Scheme is designed to facilitate the importation and supply of a number of specialist and enthusiast vehicles. The concessions currently in place to assist small businesses in the low volume scheme will also be applied to the Registered Automotive Workshop Scheme. These concessions are:- exemption from the $12,000 per vehicle special duty applied to full volume used imported passenger cars- exemption from the expensive destructive vehicle crash testing- required to comply with vehicle standards at time the vehicle was built rather than at date of importation as for full volume suppliers.29803(Question No. 2613)261329803Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:(1) Further to his answer to part (3) of question No. 2312 (Hansard, 22 May 2001, page 25772), what is his definition of the term `environmental capacity' for Australian airports.(2) Further to his answer to part (4) of question No. 2312, will he, under his definition for environmental capacity, be capable of quantifying the environmental capacity for Sydney Airport; if not, what steps does he consider necessary for the calculation of environmental capacity for Australian airports.29803Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I refer the Honourable Member to my answer to part (3) of question No. 2312.(2) See answer to (1).29803(Question No. 2616)261629803Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:Further to his answer to part (2) of question No. 2504 (Hansard, 24 May 2001, page 26027) and pursuant to subsection 160(2) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, when will he forward his proposal to adopt or implement the plan for aviation airspace management involving aircraft operations to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage.29804Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Any proposal to adopt or implement new plans for aviation airspace management involving aircraft operations that have, or will have, or are likely to have, a significant impact on the environment will be referred to the Minister for the Environment in accordance with the requirements of subsection 160(2) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.29804(Question No. 2621)262129804Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:(1) Further to his answer to question No. 2320 (Hansard, 22 May 2001, page 26741) and Part 2 of the Airports Act, is he able to say whether no provision in the Act has been made to accommodate the scenario where a person who is an airport-lessee and/or airport management company may be totally owned and/or controlled or be part thereof to a parent company or other person, with a controlling interest (defined as shareholdings therein of greater than fifteen per cent) in more than one Australian airport.(2) In light of the airport-lessees and airport management companies that already operate other Australian airports, is there a scenario where parent companies or other persons may have a controlling interest in more than one of Australia's airport lessee companies and airport management companies.(3) In light of the corporate structure of other airport lessee and airport management companies already in place, what steps will he take to ensure that the current leasing regime of Australian airports does not become monopolistic in nature or an oligopoly of private interests.(4) Are Australian airports a strategic asset with military and other implications that must be controlled in both national and public interest.(5) Is he able to say whether the potential for monopolistic control of airport lessee and airport management companies by parent controlling interests constitutes a potential breach of Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act.(6) Is he also able to say whether the potential for monopolistic control of airport lessee and airport management companies by parent controlling interests does not constitute a potential breach of Part 2 of the Airports Act and hence constitutes a policy conflict with Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act in that it permits parent control of airport lessee and airport management companies whilst exposing these companies to potential intervention by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission for breach of Part IIIA.29804Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1), (2), (3), (5) and (6) The Airports Act 1996 contains quantitative cross ownership restrictions that encompass an objective test of a 15% maximum stake in either of the respective paired airports (Sydney-Melbourne, Sydney-Brisbane and Sydney-Perth). This means the same parent entity can not hold a stake more than 15% in either of the paired airports.The policy underpinning this provision is the diversity of ownership and control of certain major airports, thereby ensuring that neither monopolistic control nor an `oligopoly of private interests' arises at these airports after the Sydney Airport sale.(4) The Government recognises that many of the leased Federal airports are of strategic importance to Australia. Some are Australia's aviation gateways to the world, while most of the others are the principal points of access to the regions they serve.The ownership and control provisions of the Airports Act, particularly those relating to cross-ownership with respect to the major four airports (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth), address the national and public interest. They do this by promoting the economic development of the leased airports in a way that is responsive to the interests of users and the region in which those airports are located These provisions also ensure that commercially-driven decisions are made about maintaining existing infrastructure and building new infrastructure.29805(Question No. 2649)264929805O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 June 2001:(1) In (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-1997, (c) 1997-98, (d) 1998-99, (e) 1999-2000 and (f) the first half of 2000-2001, how many (i) single voyage and (ii) continual voyage permits were (a) issued and (b) rejected by his Department.(2) What are the criteria for the issue of a (a) single voyage and (b) continuous voyage permit.(3) What investigations does he or his Department undertake in assessing compliance with the criteria prior to the issue of a permit.(4) If investigations in the years referred to in part (1) have led to the rejection of an application for a permit, what were the grounds for rejecting the application in each case.29805Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) (i) and (ii) Number of Single or Continuing Voyage Permits issued Permit Type95-9696-9797-9898-9999-0000-01SVP421572779704629311CVP0004173Note:Figures for the years 1990-91 to 1996-97 are for permits used.Figures for the years 1997-98 onwards relate to permits issued.Prior to 1998 no CVPs were issued(1) (b) (i) (ii) The number of Single or Continuing Voyage Permits rejected Permit Type95-9696-9797-9898-9999-0000-01SVP201012CVP000021Note: The Department does not keep records on the number of applications withdrawn by applicants. A substantial number of applications due for rejection are withdrawn and therefore will not show in the rejected figures. (2) (a) and (b) The Ministerial “Guidelines for granting licences and permits to engage in Australia's domestic shipping trade” states that the criteria for the issuing of permits are as follows: “Single and Continuing Voyage Permits Permits, either a single voyage permit (SVP) or a continuing voyage permit (CVP) may be issued to unlicensed vessels to engage in a trade between ports where: (a) no licensed ship is available for the service; or (b) that the service as carried out by the licensed ships is inadequate; and the Minister is satisfied that it is in the public interest to allow an unlicensed ship to engage in that trade.”(3) The Department contacts all relevant licensed vessel operators or trade managers to determine the availability of licensed vessels. The availability of licensed vessels is determined on a case by case basis and would include consideration of such factors as whether a licensed ship can meet the supply, production, or service obligations that necessitate the making of the application. Technical characteristics will also be relevant, such as, the vessel capacity, its adequacy in terms of cargo compatibility (eg contamination), its draft, and any port or loading restrictions.The public interest is assessed for each permit application on the merits of the case. In the case of tankers and dry bulk vessels satisfactory inspection reports are required to satisfy the public interest test. These inspection reports are forwarded to AMSA to verify that all documents are in order.(4) In each case the permit applications were refused because of the availability of licensed vessels. Applicants are generally well aware of the requirements for granting permits as detailed in the “Guidelines for granting licences and permits to engage in Australia's domestic shipping trade”. Accordingly, we would not generally expect applicants to seek permits for vessels that do not meet these requirements. 29806(Question No. 2650)265029806O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 June 2001:(1) In (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-1997, (c) 1997-98, (d) 1998-99, (e) 1999-2000 and (f) the first half of 2000-2001, how many Australian flagged vessels conducted coastal trade between Australian ports.(2) What was the average number of crew for Australian flagged vessels for each of the years referred to in part (1).(3) How many Australian seafarers were employed in the industry in each of those years.(4) How many Australian trained seafarers were employed on Australian flagged vessels in each of those years.29806Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Commonwealth Government collects information on major trading vessels, defined as vessels over 2,000 deadweight tonnes. This size of vessels performs the bulk of the coastal trade task. Information on smaller vessels, which are often intrastate traders and hence the responsibility of respective State or Territory jurisdictions, is not comprehensively collected by the Commonwealth. (a) As at 30 June 1996 there were 38 Australian registered vessels of over 2,000 deadweight tonnes that were classified as coastal trading vessels.(b) As at 30 June 1997 there were 38 Australian registered vessels of over 2,000 deadweight tonnes that were classified as coastal trading vessels.(c) The number of Australian registered vessels of over 2,000 deadweight tonnes that were classified as coastal trading vessels as at 30 June 1998 is not available due to change in the data collection regime. The change was effected to save costs.(d) As at 30 June 1999 there were 41 Australian registered vessels of over 2,000 deadweight tonnes that were classified as coastal trading vessels.(e) The number of Australian registered vessels of over 2,000 deadweight tonnes that were classified as coastal trading vessels as at 30 June 2000 is not yet available.(f) The number of Australian registered vessels of over 2,000 deadweight tonnes that were classified as coastal trading vessels as at 31 December 2000 is not yet available.(2) Crew numbers are not collected by the Commonwealth. Providing safety requirements are met, the size of a crew is a negotiable item between seafarers and ship operators. A typical large trading vessel would have a crew of 17.(3) Australian Bureau of Statistics' employment data for the Water Transport industry (defined as international sea transport, coastal water transport and inland water transport) for the period is as follows: February 19959,900 personsFebruary 19969,400 personsFebruary 199712,700 personsFebruary 19989,800 personsFebruary 199911,600 personsFebruary 200014,100 personsFebruary 200113,900 persons(4) The Australian Maritime Safety Authority is responsible for ensuring that crew qualifications meet required standards. Data is not collected on where seafarers on Australian registered coastal trading vessels have been trained.29806(Question No. 2653)265329806Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 June 2001:(1) What are the terms of reference of the Government's study into military-like activities and access to firearm training for Defence Force Cadets. (2) Will the study include an expert assessment of the likely health and safety implications of any expansion of allowable cadet activities; if so, from what sources will this expert assessment be obtained.(3) What deadline has the Government set for the completion of the report.(4) What formal consultation, if any, is envisaged with (a) cadet units, (b) youth organisations, (c) school and parent organisations, (d) State and Territory governments and (e) other Commonwealth agencies.29807Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The terms of reference are:AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE CADETS PROJECT TO REVIEW MILITARY-LIKE ACTIVITIES AND FIREARMS TRAININGBACKGROUNDAs part of the training activities conducted in a military environment, Australian Defence Force (ADF) Cadets currently participate in military-like training exercises and undertake voluntary military firearms handling and firing under ADF supervision on Commonwealth facilities, particularly during annual camps. ADF Cadets also access innocuous versions of military firearms for use in drill training and for ceremonial occasions in public.Recommendation 12 of the Cadets: The Future Review report recommended that:a. The present policy and practices concerning weapons access and use, and cadet involvement in military-like activities be thoroughly reviewed in a liberal direction, in light of the findings and advice of this Review.b. Responsible and practicable ways be found to make available to cadets closely supervised access to military rifles and to firing them, and bearing innocuous versions of them in public ceremonial, involving more substantial preparation, qualification, and use of Cadets staff.c. A protocol be developed to enable cadet participation in simulated Service activities such as infantry minor tactics in the field at levels suited to individual Cadet units and to an extent acceptable to their communities of immediate interest.The Cadets: The Future Review report at paragraph 5.71 also indicated that, in addressing the recommendation, consideration should be given to exploring the use of local ranges and shooting clubs [for firearms firing and handling]. Defence has accepted the theme of this recommendation and associated guidance and has agreed that:· cadet exposure to, and participation in, military-like activities be enhanced;· military firearms firing and handling training under ADF supervision be extended to ensure as many cadets as possible voluntarily experience this training; · sufficient numbers of innocuous firearms be made available for cadet training and ceremonial use; and· the feasibility of delivering some types of voluntary cadet firearms training through registered rifle clubs be assessed.The Government has endorsed the Defence position and directed that a report be submitted for Government consideration by 31 Aug 01. Prior to submission to Government, the report will need to be considered by higher-level Defence Committee(s).SCOPE OF PROJECT RequirementA report in four parts addressing:a. military-like activities;b. military firearms firing and handling; c. provision of innocuous firearms; andd. delivery of voluntary firearms training through registered rifle clubs.Issues to be addressedMilitary-like activities. Issues to be addressed include but are not limited to:· review of current cadet military-like activities and individual Service cadet training policies;· extent of restrictions on cadet military-like activities and their justification;· assessment of cadet and officer/instructor of cadet views in relation to military-like activities;· training requirements for cadet and officer/instructor of cadet participation in enhanced military-like activities; · capacity of foster and sponsoring units to deliver enhanced military-like activities for cadets;· occupational health and safety and duty of care considerations; and· proposed way ahead to provide enhanced cadet exposure to, and participation in, military-like activities.Military firearms firing and handling. Issues to be addressed include but are not limited to:· review of current cadet military firearms firing and handling, individual Service training policies, and ADF firearms, range and safety policies;· assessment of the extent of cadet voluntary participation in military firearms firing and handling during annual cadet camps;· capacity of foster and sponsoring units to deliver enhanced military firearms firing and handling, on ADF ranges and under ADF supervision, during annual cadet camps; · capacity of foster and sponsoring units to deliver enhanced military firearms firing and handling, on ADF ranges and under ADF supervision, on occasions other than at annual camps;· assessment of the capacity for Defence armouries and staff to secure, maintain and manage sufficient numbers of military firearms for cadet firing and handling, including the provision of ammunition;· any impact of the National Firearms Agreement and Commonwealth, State and Territory laws on the delivery of military firearms firing and handling;· occupational health and safety and duty of care considerations; and· proposed way ahead to ensure as many cadets as possible voluntarily experience military firearms firing and handling.Provision of innocuous firearms. Issues to be addressed include but are not limited to:· review of current innocuous firearms holdings, individual Service training policies, and ADF security and armoury requirements;· adequacy of the current project to deliver innocuous versions of the F88 AUSTEYR;· assessment of the number of innocuous F88 AUSTEYR required to meet current and future requirements;· assessment of the capacity for Defence armouries and staff to secure, maintain and manage innocuous firearms holdings and provide cadet unit access to innocuous firearms; and· proposed way ahead for delivering sufficient numbers of innocuous firearms for cadet training and ceremonial use. Delivery of voluntary firearms training through registered rifle clubs. Issues to be addressed include but are not limited to:· review of the legislative and policy requirements in respect of firearms training, in the context of the National Firearms Agreement and Commonwealth, State and Territory laws, including Cadet Forces Regulations; · assessment of the suitability and capacity of registered rifle clubs to deliver firearms handling and firing, appropriate to the needs of cadets;· cost of delivering firearms training through registered rifle clubs; · occupational health and safety, Commonwealth workplace and duty of care considerations;· possible public reaction to ADF Cadet involvement with registered rifle clubs;· assessment of cadet, officer/instructor of cadet, parental and community support for the delivery of voluntary firearms training through registered rifle clubs, and the likely rate of participation; and · recommendations on the feasibility of delivering some types of voluntary cadet firearms training through registered rifle clubs.STAKEHOLDERSJurisdictions and agencies to be consulted during the project are:· Single Services;· Director-General of Cadets;· Head Service Delivery, in relation to non-Service armouries and those managed under contract;· Commander Joint Logistics;· Director-General of Safety, Compensation and People Development;· Director-General Defence Legal Office;· ADF Cadets, including Australian Navy Cadets, Australian Army Cadets and Australian Air Force Cadets, cadets and officers/instructors of cadets;· the Attorney-General's Department in relation to:- the National Firearms Agreement;- the Australasian Police Ministers' Council; and· State and Territory jurisdictions, in relation to:- the National Firearms Agreement; and- State and Territory firearms legislation; and· the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and Comcare Australia, in relation to:- the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991.· Representatives of peak registered rifle and gun clubs.Approval is given to the project team to liaise directly with stakeholders.RESOURCES AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORTThe Directorate of Defence Force Cadets will meet the salaries, travel and resource costs associated with this project. The Directorate contact officer is Staff Officer Cadets, telephone (02) 6265 3493.The project leader is to submit an outline of travel and administrative support requirements for the project to the Director-General of Cadets.REPORT SECURITY/HANDLING CLASSIFICATIONThe project leader is to determine the classification of the interim and final review report in accordance with SECMAN4 Section 4 Chapter 3. REPORT TIMINGSReports are to be submitted to the Director-General of Cadets in accordance with the following schedule:a. a progress report by 21 May 2001;b. an interim report by 15 June 2001; andc. the final report by 13 July 2001.D.C. LOW CHOYMajor GeneralDirector-General of Cadets11 May 2001(2) Advice has been sought from the Defence Safety Management Agency and Comcare on occupational health and safety issues.(3) The report is to be submitted to the Government by 31 August 2001.(4) (a) (b) and (c) Consultation will be undertaken with a cross-section of the membership of the Australian Defence Force Cadets and stakeholder groups. (d) Selected State and Territory law enforcement and firearms jurisdictions will be consulted.(e) Comcare, Attorney-General's Department and agencies within the Department of Defence have been consulted.29810(Question No. 2660)266029810Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:(1) Does Airservices Australia Officer Mr Lee Kenna sit as chair of the Australian Standards Committee EV11.(2) Did Mr Mike Mrdak of his Department write, as Airport Operations and more recently as Assistant Secretary, to the EV11 Committee stating objection to the word unacceptable in the standard AS2021, indicating a preference for the replacement terminology developments not permitted; if so, (a) why and (b) did he instruct Mr Mrdak to take that action; if so, why.(3) Has Mr Kenna written and stated in the EV11 Committee of August 2000 that the word unacceptable as is used in the present Standard is emotional and should be changed; if so, (a) why was action taken to change the word, (b) did he instruct Mr Kenna to take that action; if so, why and (c) will such a change adversely affect the interest of public health and safety.29810Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) to (3) In March 2000 my Department released a discussion paper entitled `Expanding Ways to Describe and Assess Aircraft Noise'. On page 55 of the paper, under Section 7.3 `Review and revision of Australian Standard AS2021', it is stated, amongst other things, that `In the first instance it is considered important that the wording `acceptable' and `unacceptable' in the Standard be replaced by more objective terms such as `no building restrictions' or `building not permitted/recommended'. As discussed at a number of points in this paper, what is considered `acceptable' by the Standard is not necessarily `acceptable' to the individual.' My Department has drawn this proposal to the attention of Standards Australia.29810(Question No. 2661)266129810Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:(1) Are the full social and environmental costs of the impacts of Sydney Airport operations met by Government or the aviation industry; if not, is any cost borne by Sydney residents.(2) In terms of annual aircraft movements and aircraft mix, what is the maximum possible operational capacity for Sydney Airports two parallel runways.(3) Is he able to say whether the two parallel runways at Minneapolis St Paul International Airport are (a) 8200ft and 10000ft, respectively, in length; if not, what are their lengths and (b) separated by 3380ft; if so, by how much do these measurements differ from the length and separation of the two parallel runways at Sydney Airport.(4) Have representatives directly or indirectly answerable to him visited Minneapolis St Paul airport; if so, (a) which representatives and (b) what were the (i) dates and (ii) purposes of the visits.(5) Is he able to say whether almost 500 000 aircraft movements were achieved during 1997 on the two parallel runways at Minneapolis St Paul International Airport with minimal use of the east west cross runway; if not, what was the number of movements on those two runways.(6) Is he able to say whether in June 1997 the published typical runway use percentages by runways at Minneapolis St Paul were, respectively, (a) over the north on north short parallel 16L/30R27.6% landings and 22.1% takeoffs, (b) over the south on north long parallel 16R/30L21.4% landings and 25.9% takeoffs, (c) over the east on east west cross runway 4/221.2% landings and 0.3% takeoffs and (d) over the west on east west cross runway 4/220.5% landings and 3.8% takeoffs; if not what are the correct percentages.(7) Is he able to say whether in peak hours, in both wet and fine weather, aircraft movements at Minneapolis St Paul International Airport and Lambert St Louis International Airport achieve levels of 120 movements per hour using two parallel runways which are virtually identical to those at Sydney Airport. (8) Is he able to say whether (a) the Precision Runway Monitor System (PRMS) is used at Minneapolis St Paul, (b) the PRMS was part of the 1993 capacity enhancement plan for that airport and (c) full implementation of the PRMS at operational airport capacity would increase Sydney Airports environmental impact on affected Sydney residents.(9) Is he able to say whether (a) the removal of small aircraft from Minneapolis St Paul International Airport was part of the 1993 capacity enhancement plan for that airport and (b) such removal of small planes is also proposed for Sydney Airport.(10) Is he also able to say whether (a) according to airport data published by the Federal Aviation Administration, new angled runway 17/35 at Minneapolis St Paul will lift the forecast capacity of that airport to 685 000 movements per year and (b) a fourth, angled, runway was proposed in December 2000 for Sydney Airport.29811Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) It would be appreciated if the Honourable Member could clarify his question.(2) The number of aircraft movements at Sydney Airport is constrained by the limitations imposed by the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997 and the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995.(3) to (10) The Honourable Member may wish to view the Minneapolis St Paul International airport website at http://www.mspairport.com This site has details on the airport layout and operations. 29811(Question No. 2662)266229811Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:Is Sydney Airport capable, or can be technically made capable, of handling up to 500 000 aircraft movements per annum on the two existing parallel runways and would this increase be contingent upon any additional measures being implemented; if so, what are those contingencies.29811Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The number of aircraft movements at Sydney Airport is constrained by the limitations imposed by the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997 and the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995.29811(Question No. 2664)266429811Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:What contingency plans are in place to respond to a jet aircraft crash in populated areas of the Sydney metropolitan area and will he table these details to the House.29811Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Emergency response, including to a major civil aviation disaster, is the prime responsibility of State and Territory Governments. The NSW State Government has plans to respond to major civil air accidents within the State.29811(Question No. 2667)266729811Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:(1) Further to his response to question No. 2307 (Hansard, 23 May 2001, page 25926), was he incorrect when he stated that the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) will be fully implemented; if not, how will the advertised target of 17% movements (annually averaged) over the north be achieved and maintained in the long-term as annual aircraft movements are increasing and given that since LTOP was introduced, 17% of movements (annually averaged) over the north has never been achieved at current aircraft movement rates. (2) Have LTOP targets not been achieved at 300 000 movements per annum and is meaningful noise sharing technically impossible to achieve at movement levels above 360 000 per annum on two parallel runways such as those at Sydney Airport.(3) Are only parallel runway operations used at rates of 80 aircraft movements an hour at Sydney Airport.(4) Did the LTOP road show video, as presented by the Hon Joe Hockey, MP and a representative of Airservices Australia, advertise that 40% of the aircraft using Sydney Airport will be propeller planes.(5) Will he table a copy of the LTOP road show video and the full text of that videos script as presented at each of the six LTOP road shows.29812Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. I refer the Honourable Member to my answer to part (2) of question No. 2307.(2) I am advised that it is expected that growth at the Airport will tend to be focussed on the peak hours. Therefore there will continue to be less busy periods at the Airport when the noise sharing modes involving the east-west runway can be used.(3) Movement rates of 80 per hour are only achievable using parallel runway modes.(4) Approximately 40% of the runway movements at the Airport during the year 2000 were in non-jet aircraft.(5) It has not been possible to readily locate the requested information. I am not prepared to devote significant resources to retrieve information when no need for that information has been justified.29812(Question No. 2670)267029812Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:(1) Further to his response to part (5) of question No. 2316 (Hansard, 23 May 2001, page 25928), were a proportion of the 1.5 million Sydney residents exposed to road traffic noise levels exceeding the World Health Organisations (WHO) community noise guidelines also exposed to aircraft noise levels in excess of the WHO community noise guidelines; if so, how many.(2) Further to the map of aircraft noise exposure shown on page 204 of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Aircraft Noise in Sydney, how many persons live (a) within the area bounded by the 10% moderately affected contour, (b) between the 10% and 20% moderately affected contours and (c) in the 20% and above moderately affected contour.(3) How many people are expected to be exposed to aircraft noise equal to or exceeding 30 Aircraft Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) in 2010 and what arrangements have been made regarding the provision of adequate noise mitigation.(4) Was the decision not to provide noise amelioration for residences in the 25 ANEF to 30 ANEF contour made in the full knowledge of well-documented evidence, including the existence of the Cornell University's Professor Gary Evans studies, that have identified potential health risks and learning problems for children living in residences subject to such noise levels.(5) Further to his response to part (7) of question 2316, (a) how many residences were occupied by the 100,000 persons who were exposed to noise equal to or in excess of 20 ANEF from 1 July to 30 September 2000 and (b) was every residence within the 20 ANEI contour for 1 July to 30 September 2000 occupied by at least one person.29812Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1), (2), (3) and (5) The detailed information sought in these questions is not available.(4) The decision not to provide amelioration for residences in the 25 ANEF to 30 ANEF was made by a Labor Government in 1994 when the Sydney Airport Noise Amelioration Program was established.29813(Question No. 2685)268529813Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:(1) Has any agreement been reached about the toll associated with construction of the Western Sydney Orbital Road.(2) Will there be three tolls on this road; if so, what is the estimated amount of each toll.29813Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) The level of tolls for various classes of vehicle and for use of the road over different distances will be addressed in the context of the contract to build and operate the road.29813(Question No. 2700)270029813Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 June 2001:(1) Have approximately 1.1 million men and women served in the Australian Reserve Forces between 1948 and 1998.(2) Will he consider awarding a service or commemorative medal to these men and women; if not, why not.29813Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The figure of 1.1 million is a cumulative figure over time based on an average strength of 22,000 people serving in the Australian Reserve Forces each year over the period. The number who actually served over the period was more in the order of about 500,000, most of who served in the Citizen Military Forces and later, the Army Reserve. To find the exact number who served over the period would require extensive research through the archives. Defence does not have the capacity to undertake such a task.(2) The issue of special recognition for service by way of new and unique medals was raised during the 1993/94 Committee of Inquiry into Defence and Defence Related Awards (CIDA). CIDA noted that Reserve Force personnel were eligible for the same range of campaign, bravery and distinguished service awards as members of the regular services.It is Government policy that medals be reserved for the recognition of service in military operations and other activities clearly and markedly more demanding and hazardous than normal. Defence duty such as training and day-to-day unit tasks may at times be onerous, but is normal peacetime service and is not recognised by the award of a medal. Peacetime service in the Defence Force, except for meritorious service or the established 15 years for long service, does not warrant a service medal. Any such award would not be within the intent of the Australian Honours and Awards System.Additionally, normal service rendered outside operations is considered ordinary duty. Regular personnel performing the same duties do not qualify for any special award. Accordingly, the Government believes, and in line with the parameters outlined above, that the introduction of a service medal to recognise service solely for being in the Reserve Forces is not warranted.29813(Question No. 2716)271629813Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 20 June 2001:(1) Further to part (4) of the answer to question No. 2509 (Hansard, 7 June 2001, page 27669) will the lessee of Sydney Airport be bound to the implementation of the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) for Sydney Airport.(2) Will Airservices Australia be contractually or commercially liable should the full implementation of LTOP conflict with profitability of airport operations in the hands of the lessee.(3) What foreseeable legal rights will the lessee have in order to prevent the full implementation of the LTOP. (4) Further to part (6) of the answer to question No. 2509, will he table in this House a copy of the findings of the Precision Runway Monitor Trial when the findings from the trial of the system are finalised; if so, when.29814Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (3) The implementation of LTOP will not be affected by the sale of Sydney Airport. I refer the Honourable Member to my answer to part (4) of question No. 2509.(2) The lease of the Airport will have no effect on the Direction given to Airservices Australia by the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon John Sharp MP, in July 1997 to implement LTOP.(4) The report on the Precision Runway Monitor Trial is a matter for the Environment Minister.29814(Question No. 2722)272229814Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:(1) How many serving Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel committed suicide in (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000.(2) Has Defence conducted any analysis of the suicide rate for (a) the ADF, (b) each Service and (c) individual Defence Units, compared to the general Australian population of a similar age; if so, what were the findings of the analysis.(3) Does the ADF maintain consistent data on (a) suicide attempts and gestures and (b) other forms of self-harm by serving personnel.(4) Does Defence provide any primary prevention programs to combat suicide and self harm amongst serving personnel; if so, what funding will be available for such programs in 2001-2002. 29814Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) 10(b) 9(c) 9(d) 8(e) 7(2) (a) Yes(b) Yes(c) NoFindingsThe ADF Health Status Report (2000) concluded that suicides were the third leading cause of death (behind natural causes and motor vehicle accidents) and accounted for 17% of deaths for permanent ADF members between 1994 and 1998. Per 10,000 personnel the rates of suicide were 1.1, 1.5, and 1.0 for Navy, Army and Air Force respectively. As a percentage of all deaths these rates transcribe to 19%, 15% and 18%. The 1998 Australian death rate for suicide in males aged 15-54 years was 31.5 per 100,000 and the average suicide death rate for ADF males (17-55 years) was 15.3 per 100,000 over the period 1994 to 1998. Although the ADF suicide death rate was lower than the Australian population rate, the smaller number of ADF suicides and the different socio-economic structure of the ADF make it difficult to draw any valid comparisons between the rates of the two populations.In 2000, Defence Health Service Branch staff analysed data on suicide and suicide related behaviour in the ADF between 1985 to 2000. The rate of suicide from 1985 to 2000 for the Navy and Army was 16.3 per 100,000 and Air Force was 10.9 per 100,000 personnel. This data was compared to the suicide rate for the Australian population, controlling for differences in population sizes. It was found that in the 15-24 year old age group the male ADF suicide rate is comparable to the Australian population. For the 25-44 year old age group the overall ADF male suicide rate is significantly less than the Australian rate. The average rate of suicides for female ADF members over a five year period (1994-1999) was 8.1 per 100,000 females per year. It is not statistically valid to compare this rate to the wider Australian community female rate due to the very small numbers involved. Comparison between the Australian population suicide rates and Defence suicide rates was only conducted for all male suicides in the age ranges of 15-24 and 24-44. The relatively small numbers of suicides per individual Service makes it very difficult to conduct any valid statistical comparisons. (3) (a) Yes(b) YesA surveillance system is maintained in accordance with National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines.(4) Several primary prevention initiatives have been developed within the ADF to combat suicide and self-harm. Presently these initiatives are being developed and conducted within current resources.29815(Question No. 2723)272329815Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:(1) In respect to his media release of 30 August 2000 headed “42,000 new medal entitlements for South East Asian Service 1955-75”, on what date did the Government submit the relevant instruments for the new awards to the Governor-General and what was the cause of the delay in doing so.(2) How many applications has Defence received to date for the award of the (a) Imperial General Service Medal 1915-62 (Clasp Malaya), (b) Imperial General Service Medal (Clasp Borneo), (c) Australian Active Service Medal 1945-75 (Clasp Malaya), (d) Australian Active Service Medal 1945-75 (Clasp Malaysia) and (e) the Australian Service Medal 1945-75 (Clasp SE Asia).(3) How many applicants, if any, have actually been awarded each of the medals referred to in part (2).(4) Since the 1998 election, has the Government provided any additional resources to the Medals Section of each respective Service to cope with additional medal entitlements; if so, what are the details; if not, what action is the Government taking to improve the processing of medal applications.29815Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The recommendations of the Review of Service Entitlement Anomalies in Respect of South-East Asian Service 1955-75 (SEA Review) resulted in numerous Medals Instruments requiring drafting or amendment during the implementation process. These Instruments required detailed legal assessment and clearance by both the Chief of the Defence Force and the Minister prior to final approval by the Governor-General. The Government submitted these Instruments to the Governor-General on 6 March 2001.(2) The Service Medals Sections do not keep a tally of the number of applications received for specific medals as most applicants do not necessarily know exactly which medals they are entitled to. Generally, applications consist of requests for medals entitlement to be reviewed in light of the SEA Review and are counted as such.Accordingly, the numbers of applications received to date by each Service Medals Section as a result of the SEA Review are as follows: Navy Medals Section: 3067Army Medals Section: 2920Air Force Medals Section:2235Total:8222 (3) (a) Imperial General Service Medal 1915-62 (Clasp Malaya): 0 (b) Imperial General Service Medal (Clasp Borneo): 29(c) Australian Active Service Medal 1945-75 (Clasp Malaya): 603 (d) Australian Active Service Medal 1945-75 (Clasp Malaysia) 404(e) Australian Service Medal 1945-75 (Clasp SE Asia) 1693(4) Yes. Since the 1998 election, the Service Medals Sections have been working overtime to reduce the backlog of applications. Overtime ceased on June 2000 and resumed on April 2001 after the Governor-General's approval of the medals Instruments was gained. To assist with the workload, the Army Medals Section has been provided with additional staff in the form of one APS4 and four APS2 level personnel. Arrangements are currently being made to provide the Navy Medals Section with two APS3s and two APS2s. One APS3 and two APS2s are being provided to the Air Force Medals Section. Additionally, to cope with the applications that will be generated from the introduction of the new Anniversary of National Service 1951-1972 Medal, arrangements are also being made to employ two additional ASPS3s and two APS2s.29816(Question No. 2735)273529816Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:Is his Department undertaking, arranging to be conducted, or participating in the preparation of, any studies or research into the prevention of Deep Vein Thrombosis; if so (a) what is the research or study, (b) who is doing the work, (c) how much is it costing, (d) how were they selected to do that work and (e) will it be released to the public; if so, when; if not, why not.29816Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes. (a) The study will quantify the risk of Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) associated with air travel. (b) The Department of Health and Aged Care, in association with Professor C D'Arcy J Holman, University of Western Australia. (c) $100,000.(d) I sought advice from the Minister for Health and Aged Care and he advised doing an interim study using Commonwealth data and resources to establish whether there is a connection between DVT and air travel. As the data is owned by the Commonwealth it was not feasible to call tenders.(e) Once the study is completed and refereed by suitable qualified scientists, it will be published in a scientific journal.29816(Question No. 2746)274629816Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 25 June 2001:(1) How many voters registered in the 7 day period after the (a) 1998 federal election and (b) 1999 Constitutional Referendum were announced.(2) Is it the view of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) that most of these voters were 17 and 18 year olds and were first time voters.(3) Is it a fact that 40% of 18 year olds failed to register prior to the recent Queensland election.(4) What measures or programs does the Government or the AEC have to encourage young people to participate and register in Australia for elections.(5) At every federal election since 1983, how many new voters registered in the 5 working days grace that they were given after the announcement of the election.(6) How many voters were excluded at the 1983 federal election when the rolls were closed on the day the election was announced.(7) Is the Minister able to say whether the proposal to close the electoral role on the day an election is announced was contained in the Liberal Party submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters prior to its inquiry into the integrity of the electoral roll. (8) Is the AEC projecting that nearly 80 000 first time voters would use the 5 day period of grace when the next federal election is announced to register to vote. 29817Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1)(a) For the seven days from the issue of writs to the close of rolls for the 1998 federal election, 351,410 electoral enrolment forms were received and processed. (1)(b) For the seven days from the issue of writs to the close of rolls for the 1999 referendum, 302,696 electoral enrolment forms were received and processed.(2) No. Approximately 80% of the enrolment forms received were from electors already enrolled who were notifying a change of address or from electors re-enrolling following their removal from the roll by objection action. Approximately 20% of enrolment forms received were from new or first time enrollees, with a total of 64,219 at the 1998 election and 69,318 at the 1999 referendum. Of the first time enrollees, the AEC estimates that 75% were from electors aged between 18 and 25 (50% from 18 year olds, 10% from 19 year olds and 15% from electors aged 20-25 years of age). At the 1998 federal election there were 174,502 18 year old electors on the roll (an estimated participation rate of 70%) and 197,028 19 year olds (estimated 80% participation).(3) Yes. At the close of rolls for the 2001 Queensland State election there were 27 959 eighteen year old electors enrolled, an estimated 59% of the eligible population. Of these, 9,955 enrolled for the first time between the announcement of the election and the close of rolls. By polling day for the State election, an additional 1,200 provisionally enrolled electors had turned 18 years of age and were entitled to vote. A further 9,195 eighteen year old first time enrollees (from a total of 16,864 new enrollees) had lodged enrolment forms but were not entitled to vote, as they had missed the close of rolls. (As background, the AEC's Queensland Head Office undertook a major Continuous Roll Update (CRU) mailing of enrolment reminder and roll review letters on Monday 22 January 2001. The Queensland State election was announced unexpectedly on the following day with rolls closing at 5pm Monday 29 January 2001. With the timing of the election announcement just before the Australia Day long weekend, a significant number of responses to the CRU mailout, or voluntary enrolments in response to State Election publicity, were not received in time for the close of rolls at 5.00pm on the Monday. As detailed above, many of the enrolment forms received too late were from young people.)(4) The AEC undertakes a range of youth communication activities and programs during federal elections and referendums and on an ongoing basis, with the objective of increasing public knowledge and awareness of 18-24 year olds in order to maximise effective participation in the electoral process.The AEC operates Electoral Education Centres in Canberra, Melbourne and Adelaide, undertaking educational tours and conducting mock elections for visiting school groups. Electoral Education trainers explain the importance and purpose of enrolment and voting to visiting school groups.The AEC conducts a number of Continuous Roll Update (CRU) programs which specifically target young people. At the national level, the AEC conducts monthly data matches with their roll management system and Centrelink data on 17 and 18 year olds. As a result of this CRU activity 17 and 18 year olds who are incorrectly enrolled, or who are not enrolled, are mailed an AEC enrolment card.As a component of the federal election advertising campaign, television and radio `youth' advertisements are developed and placed heavily in the mass media during the close of rolls week to encourage young people to enrol. A range of public relations activities targeted at young people is also undertaken on an ongoing basis and during the election period. Public relations activities include placement of editorials in `youth' publications, information displays at university enrolment days and careers markets, promotion of enrolment through FM and Triple J radio, and heavy promotion of the AEC web site.(5) The number of first time voters who lodged enrolment forms in the seven days between issue of writs and close of rolls for the following elections is set out below. Statistics for first time voters are not available for prior elections. 199864,219199677,545199388,408(6) The AEC advises that there are no statistics or estimates available as to the number of electors who were unable to enrol for the 1983 federal election due to the immediate close of rolls, that is prior to the introduction of the seven day enrolment period following the issue of the writs. (7) I understand that copies of submissions to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matter's inquiries are available from the Committee and some submissions are available electronically through its website. I am advised that the Liberal Party submission is available electronically on the Committee's website. (8) The AEC cannot predict accurately the close of rolls transactions which might occur at the forthcoming federal election. Based on experience at the close of rolls for the last 3 federal elections, it is likely that there will be 300,000-400,000 enrolment forms received during the seven days between issue of writs and close of rolls, including up to 80,000 first time enrolments.29818(Question No. 2751)275129818Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 26 June 2001:(1) Further to part (1) of the answer to question No. 2442, (Hansard, 25 June 2001, page 28541) did the former Minister for Transport state during the second reading speech on the Airports Bill (Hansard, 29 May 1996, page 1658) that the Government would not sell the airports until such time as they had been able to satisfactorily resolve Sydneys aircraft noise problems.(2) Is the sale of Sydney Airport conditional upon satisfactory resolution of Sydney's aircraft noise problems.(3) Further to part (3) of the answer to question No. 2442, is the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) for Sydney Airport a gazetted plan, including the gazetted LTOP target of 17% of all movements to the north of that airport.(4) Will he furnish reasons why the implementation of the LTOP has proved difficult to achieve; if so, what are those reasons.29818Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) During the debate on the Airports Bill a former Minister for Transport made a statement consistent with that contained in the question.(2) I refer the Honourable Member to my answer to part (1) of question No. 2307.(3) No.(4) The Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) has been substantially implemented with the exception of a small number of elements. For example, the restructuring of the arrival airspace has yet to be implemented. This includes implementation of the “trident” and “power-off” approaches. A number of complexities associated with safety and operational constraints have impinged on the implementation of this part of the Plan.29818(Question No. 2754)275429818Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 26 June 2001: (1) Is it a fact that around 350 000 voters, including first time voters and those who have recently changed their addresses, registered or re-registered to vote in the five working days after the last federal election was called.(2) At every federal election since 1983, how many voters have registered or re-registered in the five working days grace that they were given after the announcement of the election.(3) How many voters were excluded or voted in the wrong electorate at the 1983 federal elections when the Fraser government closed the rolls on the day the election was announced.(4) Is the Australian Electoral Commission projecting that nearly 350 000 first time voters and voters who have recently changed their address would use this 5 day period of grace when the next election is announced to register to vote.29819Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The answers to the honourable Member's question are contained in my response to Question No. 2746 of 25 June 2001. 29819(Question No. 2779)277929819Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 June 2001:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 1858 (Hansard, 4 October 2000, page 20855), did the Government announce in the Budget that it is now proposing to sell the Endeavour House Accommodation Complex at Coogee and Lady Gowrie House; if so, when is it proposed to sell these sites.(2) Is there a link between this decision and the review of below standard live-in accommodation for single defence personnel; if so, what is the nature of the link.(3) How many defence personnel were living at (a) Endeavour House and (b) Lady Gowrie House as at (i) 4 October 2000, (ii) 22 May 2001 and (iii) 28 June 2001.(4) In the event of these properties being sold, (a) what alternative housing arrangements will be made for the defence personnel who currently live there and (b) what proportion of the sale proceeds, if any, will be made available to improve the state of live-in accommodation for single personnel.29819Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Subject to the outcome of the review of accommodation for single Australian Defence Force (ADF) members, the Government has identified Endeavour Hostel and Lady Gowrie house for sale in 2001/02. The properties will not be sold until any revised accommodation policy has been agreed and announced.(2) Yes. The review is investigating future options for providing accommodation assistance for single ADF members in all localities.(3) (a) Endeavour House(i) 452(ii) 386(iii) 394(b) Lady Gowrie House(i) 42(ii) 43(iii) 44(4) (a) Should the sale proceed, the review of accommodation for single ADF members contains recommendations on revised housing arrangements that will provide for the needs of current occupants. By way of example, the proposed sale may include lease back arrangements.(b) Any proceeds from the sale of these properties will be returned to consolidated revenue.